5 ms·

Is there any way to hide links from walled garden news site like nytimes and others from HN list? It's kind of spam if you think about, because I can't read wit

Is there any way to hide links from walled garden news site like nytimes and others from HN list? It's kind of spam if you think about, because I can't read without paying.

bringtheaction 9y ago
Don’t know of any way short of making your own HN client, or you could make a userscript to remove entries from view based on domain. Maybe someone else has made either of those already. Aside from that there was also a domain someone set up called like fullnyt.com or something that would redirect to the full article by sending you via Facebook outgoing link wasn’t there? Anyone remember what it was called?
- bringtheaction 9y ago
  The one I was thinking of was for WSJ. fullwsj.com. Used like for example https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14511605 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14511605
  - bdcravens 9y ago
    I believe that loophole was very quickly closed by WSJ. fullwsj.com links paywall me now.
    - bringtheaction 9y ago
      The link in the comment I referenced above leads me to the full article while still showing a pop up about subscribing to get access to full articles. Did you check that the article really was cut short?
melling 9y ago
The NYT has a 10 free articles a month. If the article is good, the discussion on HN can be worth reading. In fact, it can be more valuable than the story.
- StevePerkins 9y ago
  I would be very curious to see some analytics on how many HN readers actually click the link, rather than just read (or participate in) the comments.
- 5555624 9y ago
  Delete their cookies and there's no limit.
  - pwg 9y ago
    You can even automate deleting their cookies on Firefox (at least) with the "Cookie AutoDelete" extension: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/cookie-autodelete https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/cookie-autode...
chasd00 9y ago
Just open the link in a private browsing tab (called different things in different browsers).
- devgutt 9y ago
  Ok, this is a workaround. But actually, they are saying that I shouldn't read anymore because my "quote" is over. I prefer simple don't read because I don't want to pay for that.
majormajor 9y ago
Or it's the opposite of spam: it could be a testimonial from paying customers that the content is worth it. 90% of the time I'd rather see a link to a paid source than one to the ad-revenue-hunting blogging-with-a-fancy-name Business Insider, Forbes, etc sites of the world.
- devgutt 9y ago
  There is a misunderstanding here. I am not saying NYT is doing something wrong or shouldn't do this, but I don't want to pay for their content (I have other priorities). I am just saying that HN is a much better experience without the frustration to click the link because the subject is interesting, and realize that I can't read. The content is "good" or not is irrelevant.
  - bookofjoe 9y ago
    I share your frustration, but with Financial Times links: tantalizing headlines, regularly linked here, but with an ABSOLUTE paywall, i.e.: NO free articles at all ever.
shaki-dora 9y ago
A New York Times subscription is $80/year (for the first year, and all future years if you remember to cancel/resubscribe once a year). If you're routinely triggering their metered paywall, maybe it's worth paying it. Not for everyone, obviously. But they do give basically all that money to writers, and they do quite often devote time and money to investigate serious issues, far more important than dishwasher physics.
- devgutt 9y ago
  I "triggering" their paywall because I was checking HN. And also, "serious issues" is relative.
- bdcravens 9y ago
  I'd happily pay $0.50 per article à la carte.
  - bookofjoe 9y ago
    Wow. If a lot of people concurred, MSM would be back in business BIG TIME!
    - bdcravens 9y ago
      You do realize that they offer an annual subscription at $80/year? I assume many readers are paying well less than $0.50/article with that. I'd be more than happy to reward good content, even if I pay more each year.

Is there any way to hide links from walled garden news site like nytimes and others from HN list? It's kind of spam if you think about, because I can't read without paying.

bringtheaction 9y ago

Don’t know of any way short of making your own HN client, or you could make a userscript to remove entries from view based on domain. Maybe someone else has made either of those already. Aside from that there was also a domain someone set up called like fullnyt.com or something that would redirect to the full article by sending you via Facebook outgoing link wasn’t there? Anyone remember what it was called?

bringtheaction 9y ago
The one I was thinking of was for WSJ. fullwsj.com. Used like for example https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14511605 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14511605
- bdcravens 9y ago
  I believe that loophole was very quickly closed by WSJ. fullwsj.com links paywall me now.
  - bringtheaction 9y ago
    The link in the comment I referenced above leads me to the full article while still showing a pop up about subscribing to get access to full articles. Did you check that the article really was cut short?

melling 9y ago

The NYT has a 10 free articles a month. If the article is good, the discussion on HN can be worth reading. In fact, it can be more valuable than the story.

StevePerkins 9y ago
I would be very curious to see some analytics on how many HN readers actually click the link, rather than just read (or participate in) the comments.
5555624 9y ago
Delete their cookies and there's no limit.
- pwg 9y ago
  You can even automate deleting their cookies on Firefox (at least) with the "Cookie AutoDelete" extension: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/cookie-autodelete https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/cookie-autode...

chasd00 9y ago

Just open the link in a private browsing tab (called different things in different browsers).

devgutt 9y ago
Ok, this is a workaround. But actually, they are saying that I shouldn't read anymore because my "quote" is over. I prefer simple don't read because I don't want to pay for that.

majormajor 9y ago

Or it's the opposite of spam: it could be a testimonial from paying customers that the content is worth it. 90% of the time I'd rather see a link to a paid source than one to the ad-revenue-hunting blogging-with-a-fancy-name Business Insider, Forbes, etc sites of the world.

devgutt 9y ago
There is a misunderstanding here. I am not saying NYT is doing something wrong or shouldn't do this, but I don't want to pay for their content (I have other priorities). I am just saying that HN is a much better experience without the frustration to click the link because the subject is interesting, and realize that I can't read. The content is "good" or not is irrelevant.
- bookofjoe 9y ago
  I share your frustration, but with Financial Times links: tantalizing headlines, regularly linked here, but with an ABSOLUTE paywall, i.e.: NO free articles at all ever.

shaki-dora 9y ago

A New York Times subscription is $80/year (for the first year, and all future years if you remember to cancel/resubscribe once a year). If you're routinely triggering their metered paywall, maybe it's worth paying it. Not for everyone, obviously. But they do give basically all that money to writers, and they do quite often devote time and money to investigate serious issues, far more important than dishwasher physics.

devgutt 9y ago
I "triggering" their paywall because I was checking HN. And also, "serious issues" is relative.
bdcravens 9y ago
I'd happily pay $0.50 per article à la carte.
- bookofjoe 9y ago
  Wow. If a lot of people concurred, MSM would be back in business BIG TIME!
  - bdcravens 9y ago
    You do realize that they offer an annual subscription at $80/year? I assume many readers are paying well less than $0.50/article with that. I'd be more than happy to reward good content, even if I pay more each year.