3 ms·

I think it should be annotated somewhere. I for one would not click on a link, giving it more exposure, if i knew it was paid. Unless i was already a subscrib

I think it should be annotated somewhere. I for one would not click on a link, giving it more exposure, if i knew it was paid. Unless i was already a subscriber of that particular service.

neltnerb 5y ago
Yeah, annotation like we do for PDFs or videos seems like a good idea. I certainly don't subscribe to a news source linked just for one article. Though I don't really want to give clicks to the many many articles that are either a direct copy-paste or a trivial commentary about an actual source. Those are worse. At least the paywall is honest, giving ad revenue to a 3rd party presenting content they copy as their own is way worse.
Ensorceled 5y ago
I'm not sure why you are unwilling to provide "exposure" to content that is worthy of being on Hacker News?
- belorn 5y ago
  Is it worthy to be on hacker news if a majority can't access it? Every time I see this topic being discussed, the general answer is that there has always existed a method to bypassing payment. Top comment (or close to the top) there will be an outline or other bypass being posted. One could make an argument that HN should make a special link, next to the article, where the bypass link can be highlighted. The only risk is that by acknowledging this, HN could be sued for a practice that has so far been standard practice in the last several years.
0des 5y ago
Tagging the paid links is an easy compromise that doesnt result in banning anything. However, it does make me wonder, if the publisher effectively banned me from their content, why should there not be a quid pro quo on behalf of the drivers of clicks. Does anybody know of any instances where a publisher acknowledges that HN sends a fair bit of traffic their way, and when a link is referred via HN it bypasses the wall entirely? That would be smart, and respectful.
- neltnerb 5y ago
  I suppose places used to do this for Google. Not sure if they still do, but I remember if you searched for an article on Google there was a period in time where it would bypass the paywall you'd have hit going directly to the article.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- r721 5y ago
  >HN sends a fair bit of traffic their way Funnily I was looking recently at The Atlantic's entry on SimilarWeb, and noticed that HN is one of the top referring sites: >news.ycombinator.com 5.75% https://www.similarweb.com/website/theatlantic.com/#referrals https://www.similarweb.com/website/theatlantic.com/#referral...

I think it should be annotated somewhere. I for one would not click on a link, giving it more exposure, if i knew it was paid. Unless i was already a subscriber of that particular service.

neltnerb 5y ago

Yeah, annotation like we do for PDFs or videos seems like a good idea. I certainly don't subscribe to a news source linked just for one article. Though I don't really want to give clicks to the many many articles that are either a direct copy-paste or a trivial commentary about an actual source. Those are worse. At least the paywall is honest, giving ad revenue to a 3rd party presenting content they copy as their own is way worse.

Ensorceled 5y ago

I'm not sure why you are unwilling to provide "exposure" to content that is worthy of being on Hacker News?

belorn 5y ago
Is it worthy to be on hacker news if a majority can't access it? Every time I see this topic being discussed, the general answer is that there has always existed a method to bypassing payment. Top comment (or close to the top) there will be an outline or other bypass being posted. One could make an argument that HN should make a special link, next to the article, where the bypass link can be highlighted. The only risk is that by acknowledging this, HN could be sued for a practice that has so far been standard practice in the last several years.

0des 5y ago

Tagging the paid links is an easy compromise that doesnt result in banning anything. However, it does make me wonder, if the publisher effectively banned me from their content, why should there not be a quid pro quo on behalf of the drivers of clicks. Does anybody know of any instances where a publisher acknowledges that HN sends a fair bit of traffic their way, and when a link is referred via HN it bypasses the wall entirely? That would be smart, and respectful.

neltnerb 5y ago
I suppose places used to do this for Google. Not sure if they still do, but I remember if you searched for an article on Google there was a period in time where it would bypass the paywall you'd have hit going directly to the article.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
r721 5y ago
>HN sends a fair bit of traffic their way Funnily I was looking recently at The Atlantic's entry on SimilarWeb, and noticed that HN is one of the top referring sites: >news.ycombinator.com 5.75% https://www.similarweb.com/website/theatlantic.com/#referrals https://www.similarweb.com/website/theatlantic.com/#referral...