5 ms·
Slightly off topic, but does anyone else think it would be nice to have a policy against linking websites with aggressive/obnoxious paywalls?
by wyager 7y ago
Slightly off topic, but does anyone else think it would be nice to have a policy against linking websites with aggressive/obnoxious paywalls?
- Armisael16 7y agoThe answer to DAE questions is always yes, regardless of the question. I think it’s a bad idea - there’s no need to ban discussion of an article because not everyone can read it.
- throwanem 7y agoEspecially when paywalls aren't really hard to bypass. Usually any thread involving a paywalled article will include an archive link. For example: https://archive.is/qG0hS https://archive.is/qG0hS
- tomhoward 7y agoAccording to the FAQs, articles that not everyone can read are banned from HN. However, that doesn't include articles on NY Times, WSJ, Washington Post, Economist etc, because those sites' paywalls can be bypassed easily using something like https://archive.md https://archive.md.
- umanwizard 7y agoIf you want to read their articles so bad, what stops you from paying for NYT?
- webnrrd2k 7y agoMaybe it's not the article itself, but they want everyone to be able to take part in the discussion. I don't think it's an unreasonable thing to want, especially on a site that values open and public discussions.
- dylan604 7y agoYou make it sound like reading the article is a requirement to be able to comment.
- pwg 7y agoSee: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html Section "Are paywalls ok?"
- jshevek 7y agoMy understanding is that paywalled articles should be bypassable. It's okay to ask how to bypass it, but not to [hypothetically] complain about the need to bypass it.
- jshevek 7y ago"Simplified view" in Brave bypasses the paywall. I assume "reader view" in Firefox does the same.