4 ms·

If a story becomes highly-ranked, it's almost certainly not behind a paywall, or it wouldn't become highly-ranked in the first place. Maybe you're thinking of

If a story becomes highly-ranked, it's almost certainly not behind a paywall, or it wouldn't become highly-ranked in the first place. Maybe you're thinking of the NYT, where you register once for a free account (or just use a password from bugmenot.com)? Perhaps the WSJ, where the full text of everything is available from Google News?

cont4gious 16y ago
I was thinking of the NYT articles. Even if I don't have to pay to read them, the principle is the same. I shouldn't have to register on a site to read the content. I can understand registering to interact (comment, etc) but not to simply access.
- michael_dorfman 16y ago
  Huh? This makes no sense to me. Are you arguing that you have a moral right to consume, without limitation, the articles created by the New York Times, without any restrictions whatsoever? If not, what's you're argument exactly? That the NY Times doesn't have the moral right to require registrations to access their content? Personally, I love the Times, and I'd be willing to pay for access, if it came to that. I'm happy that they've been able to find a business model that does not require me to pay, and my registering for the site is an insignificant price to pay.
  - rewind 16y ago
    Gotta agree here. OP is complaining that the articles are not free. After the explanation is given that they are free and require registration, that becomes the new problem. If these are issues the OP has, that's fine, but I don't think all of HN should be kept from these stories because OP doesn't want to take 30 seconds one time to register a throw-away account.
    - smackfu 16y ago
      Right, shifting goalposts. The original argument was solely financial.
sfgfdhgfdshdhhd 16y ago
>> Perhaps the WSJ, where the full text of everything is available from Google News? Why not link to the Google News page instead, then?

cont4gious 16y ago

I was thinking of the NYT articles. Even if I don't have to pay to read them, the principle is the same. I shouldn't have to register on a site to read the content. I can understand registering to interact (comment, etc) but not to simply access.

michael_dorfman 16y ago
Huh? This makes no sense to me. Are you arguing that you have a moral right to consume, without limitation, the articles created by the New York Times, without any restrictions whatsoever? If not, what's you're argument exactly? That the NY Times doesn't have the moral right to require registrations to access their content? Personally, I love the Times, and I'd be willing to pay for access, if it came to that. I'm happy that they've been able to find a business model that does not require me to pay, and my registering for the site is an insignificant price to pay.
- rewind 16y ago
  Gotta agree here. OP is complaining that the articles are not free. After the explanation is given that they are free and require registration, that becomes the new problem. If these are issues the OP has, that's fine, but I don't think all of HN should be kept from these stories because OP doesn't want to take 30 seconds one time to register a throw-away account.
  - smackfu 16y ago
    Right, shifting goalposts. The original argument was solely financial.

sfgfdhgfdshdhhd 16y ago

>> Perhaps the WSJ, where the full text of everything is available from Google News? Why not link to the Google News page instead, then?