5 ms·

https://archive.is/QO7jd https://archive.is/QO7jd An aside: Why bother submitting paywalled articles? Why bother upvoting paywalled articles? > 95% of readers

https://archive.is/QO7jd https://archive.is/QO7jd An aside: Why bother submitting paywalled articles? Why bother upvoting paywalled articles? > 95% of readers probably don't have access. Not being facetious, I genuinely want to know. Do people upvote without reading? Will almost everyone take the effort to throw the link into a paywall buster? Do many HN readers subscribe to paywalled sources?

matsemann 2y ago
FWIW it wasn't pay walled here. I just had to press "Show full article" and could read on. Perhaps it's based on geo location (I'm not their market) or how much one's read them lately?
- asimpletune 2y ago
  I was prompted to create a free account to keep reading.
  - cwassert 2y ago
    If you have to create an account or accept an EULA it is not free.
    - valicord 2y ago
      Free as in beer
- isoprophlex 2y ago
  Oh right, that actually makes a lot of sense, thanks..!
- joak 2y ago
  If you google "Where Glaciers Melt, the Rivers Run Red" the first hit is the nyt article, if you click on this link you'll find the article non-paywalled! Edit: if it doesn't work try again in a private/incognito tab to make sure it's all fresh cookies So depending on the http-origin header the article is paywalled or not. This is a trick I always use, it works for many newspapers.
  - nosianu 2y ago
    Nope, I still get the paywall. I noticed this for some time, the trick to go "Incognito" does not work any more for some sites. It's not a big deal, I can use the archive link or just not read it, all those articles are merely of the "mildly interesting" category anyway. Not to mention that they are 90+% fluff and the core message could usually be summarized with a few sentences. I am curious though, given that this is HN, does anyone know how they are doing that paywall tracking these days? It is not just NYT where the fresh incognito window no longer works to get around the restriction. Washington Post too, for example, at least for me.
    - joak 2y ago
      It's weird, I tried before posting to check if my tip was working on this article, and it did.
    - mark-r 2y ago
      I think Washington Post was first to implement it. I remember reading about it here on HN when it went into effect.
thom 2y ago
99% of the time the top comment is an archive link.
bell-cot 2y ago
For me (NYT non-subscriber, US, blocking most js), only the first 4 paragraphs are visible. That's fairly common for web sites to do (# of visible paragraphs varies, obviously). And usually shows enough to convince me that the article is worth no more of my time.
oniony 2y ago
I share your annoyance. I've convinced that the sites themselves are doing this to attract subscribers. Every time anyone complains you get the backlash of "if you want good journalism you have to pay for it", yet few can afford to subscribe to more than one or two publications and yet we have to suffer paywalled links from all of them. For me, the one UK publication I pay for is enough (and that one is, ironically, not even paywalled).
- echelon 2y ago
  It's a distribution and friction problem. We solved it for music. We need the same for journalism. Microtransactions never took off, so that leaves one option: journalism companies need to stop having their own websites and instead publish to an aggregator (or aggregators) that handle payment and monetization. Spotify or Netflix for news. But perhaps that would turn them into an even lower margin business with no ownership of their own audience relationship. Doesn't seem like a fun business to be in. Nevertheless, it's still a distribution and friction problem.
  - pluc 2y ago
    The model does not work. Nobody wants to subscribe to read one article in a blue moon, so we "pirate" it using archival sites. Piracy gave us DRM and streaming, archival will give us something new eventually, when they realize it doesn't work.
  - crooked-v 2y ago
    Apple News+ is kind of that, but has the basic issue that paid articles are still stuffed with ads, which makes it pretty pointless.
  - jjmarr 2y ago
    That already happened, except Reddit, Facebook, and Hacker News don't pay for the content they aggregate. People dodge paywalls in the comments, and many don't even bother to read the story. What would a paid solution offer over that? My cool idea would be an aggregator that charges people a subscription fee to participate and read stories. $100/month and extremely heavy (paid) moderation that forces people to engage with the articles. The price point helps get rid of anyone who is unwilling to participate constructively. Revenue-sharing for commenters as well. Make it the place where real discussions happen. People are social creatures and want to join exclusive clubs.
dredmorbius 2y ago
Re aside: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10178989 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10178989>
latexr 2y ago
> Why bother submitting paywalled articles? They are explicitly permitted, as long as there are workarounds. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html#:~:text=Are%20paywalls%20ok%3F https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html#:~:text=Are%20payw... Though I wish submitters would provide the workaround (or gift link) too when submitting (I try to do so). It’s often someone else who does it. Though in fairness I guess someone may forget something is paywalled when they’re paying for it and have access.
- marcosdumay 2y ago
  If people just marked the title with a (paywall) it would already be an improvement.
  - latexr 2y ago
    Sounds like that should be done automatically, like HN auto adds [pdf] or [video] for certain URLs. You can suggest [paywall] by emailing hn@ycombinator.com.
anjanb 2y ago
I subscribe to 4-5 paywalled sources. Rest, I rely on others to give me the archive links.
ctippett 2y ago
Save yourself the angst and give this userscript[1] a go. It adds some nice quality of life improvements for posts that link to paywalled articles. [1] https://github.com/MostlyEmre/hn-anti-paywall https://github.com/MostlyEmre/hn-anti-paywall

matsemann 2y ago

FWIW it wasn't pay walled here. I just had to press "Show full article" and could read on. Perhaps it's based on geo location (I'm not their market) or how much one's read them lately?

asimpletune 2y ago
I was prompted to create a free account to keep reading.
- cwassert 2y ago
  If you have to create an account or accept an EULA it is not free.
  - valicord 2y ago
    Free as in beer
isoprophlex 2y ago
Oh right, that actually makes a lot of sense, thanks..!
joak 2y ago
If you google "Where Glaciers Melt, the Rivers Run Red" the first hit is the nyt article, if you click on this link you'll find the article non-paywalled! Edit: if it doesn't work try again in a private/incognito tab to make sure it's all fresh cookies So depending on the http-origin header the article is paywalled or not. This is a trick I always use, it works for many newspapers.
- nosianu 2y ago
  Nope, I still get the paywall. I noticed this for some time, the trick to go "Incognito" does not work any more for some sites. It's not a big deal, I can use the archive link or just not read it, all those articles are merely of the "mildly interesting" category anyway. Not to mention that they are 90+% fluff and the core message could usually be summarized with a few sentences. I am curious though, given that this is HN, does anyone know how they are doing that paywall tracking these days? It is not just NYT where the fresh incognito window no longer works to get around the restriction. Washington Post too, for example, at least for me.
  - joak 2y ago
    It's weird, I tried before posting to check if my tip was working on this article, and it did.
  - mark-r 2y ago
    I think Washington Post was first to implement it. I remember reading about it here on HN when it went into effect.

thom 2y ago

99% of the time the top comment is an archive link.

bell-cot 2y ago

For me (NYT non-subscriber, US, blocking most js), only the first 4 paragraphs are visible. That's fairly common for web sites to do (# of visible paragraphs varies, obviously). And usually shows enough to convince me that the article is worth no more of my time.

oniony 2y ago

I share your annoyance. I've convinced that the sites themselves are doing this to attract subscribers. Every time anyone complains you get the backlash of "if you want good journalism you have to pay for it", yet few can afford to subscribe to more than one or two publications and yet we have to suffer paywalled links from all of them. For me, the one UK publication I pay for is enough (and that one is, ironically, not even paywalled).

echelon 2y ago
It's a distribution and friction problem. We solved it for music. We need the same for journalism. Microtransactions never took off, so that leaves one option: journalism companies need to stop having their own websites and instead publish to an aggregator (or aggregators) that handle payment and monetization. Spotify or Netflix for news. But perhaps that would turn them into an even lower margin business with no ownership of their own audience relationship. Doesn't seem like a fun business to be in. Nevertheless, it's still a distribution and friction problem.
- pluc 2y ago
  The model does not work. Nobody wants to subscribe to read one article in a blue moon, so we "pirate" it using archival sites. Piracy gave us DRM and streaming, archival will give us something new eventually, when they realize it doesn't work.
- crooked-v 2y ago
  Apple News+ is kind of that, but has the basic issue that paid articles are still stuffed with ads, which makes it pretty pointless.
- jjmarr 2y ago
  That already happened, except Reddit, Facebook, and Hacker News don't pay for the content they aggregate. People dodge paywalls in the comments, and many don't even bother to read the story. What would a paid solution offer over that? My cool idea would be an aggregator that charges people a subscription fee to participate and read stories. $100/month and extremely heavy (paid) moderation that forces people to engage with the articles. The price point helps get rid of anyone who is unwilling to participate constructively. Revenue-sharing for commenters as well. Make it the place where real discussions happen. People are social creatures and want to join exclusive clubs.

dredmorbius 2y ago

Re aside: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10178989 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10178989>

latexr 2y ago

> Why bother submitting paywalled articles? They are explicitly permitted, as long as there are workarounds. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html#:~:text=Are%20paywalls%20ok%3F https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html#:~:text=Are%20payw... Though I wish submitters would provide the workaround (or gift link) too when submitting (I try to do so). It’s often someone else who does it. Though in fairness I guess someone may forget something is paywalled when they’re paying for it and have access.

marcosdumay 2y ago
If people just marked the title with a (paywall) it would already be an improvement.
- latexr 2y ago
  Sounds like that should be done automatically, like HN auto adds [pdf] or [video] for certain URLs. You can suggest [paywall] by emailing hn@ycombinator.com.

anjanb 2y ago

I subscribe to 4-5 paywalled sources. Rest, I rely on others to give me the archive links.

ctippett 2y ago

Save yourself the angst and give this userscript[1] a go. It adds some nice quality of life improvements for posts that link to paywalled articles. [1] https://github.com/MostlyEmre/hn-anti-paywall https://github.com/MostlyEmre/hn-anti-paywall