4 ms·

I've gotten downvoted for mentioning paywalls as well. I think this is a very valid call out though. While there are workarounds, I don't want to spend more th

I've gotten downvoted for mentioning paywalls as well. I think this is a very valid call out though. While there are workarounds, I don't want to spend more than 2 seconds opening an article (most the time it isn't worth going to google cache, some archive, or doing the fb redirect). I dislike that it is effectively a dead link for many people and that it is being shared on the front page of a major aggregator. It is poor user experience to be opening dead links and really trains me against visiting certain sites. I would absolutely pay 5 cents to read an article. There is no feasible way to do this small of a transaction with our current payment systems. I will absolutely not subscribe for 5 dollars a month.

krapp 8y ago
>While there are workarounds, I don't want to spend more than 2 seconds opening an article (most the time it isn't worth going to google cache, some archive, or doing the fb redirect). And yet you wasted more time that that writing this comment, so we could waste more time that that reading it. If your time is so valuable that you can't be bothered to put in even the few seconds of minimal effort needed to engage with the topic at hand, perhaps your time is better spent elsewhere.
- TACIXAT 8y ago
  Yes, I did spend time writing a comment about a topic I care about. I do not want to spend time circumventing a site's desired mode of operation for an article I am only moderately interested in. >so we could waste more time that that reading it No need to be nasty about it.