4 ms·

What I don't really get is how people on this tech-savvy resource still submit links to sources which go against the very idea of free information. Can't we ju

What I don't really get is how people on this tech-savvy resource still submit links to sources which go against the very idea of free information. Can't we just look this up somewhere else instead of encouraging this bullshit paywall behavior? Or is the quality of information that different?

8ig8 12y ago
> Can't we just look this up somewhere else instead of encouraging this bullshit paywall behavior? Or is the quality of information that different? I honestly don't know, but I think in news, time is a factor. Use this post as a test: what non-paywall link would you submit?
- gear54rus 12y ago
  Just above this comment tree, there's a link to BBC: http://www.bbc.com/news/business-30077122 http://www.bbc.com/news/business-30077122 Not sure how they differ since non-paywall wsj link does not work for me (still has paywall in 2 different browsers).
  - melling 12y ago
    It doesn't seem to provide nearly as much information. Not everyone's business model is to give self-entitled individuals free stuff. By posting urls to good articles that are behind pay-walls, you do provide a place to discuss the information, etc., and everyone can still learn. That is assuming at least some of us can read it. I pay for the wsj. Why wouldn't I pay for good research, good writing, knowledge, etc.? People need to earn a living.
forgingahead 12y ago
The quality is night and day. The BBC has unfortunately lost the plot in recent months (go to their homepage and see how many stories are headlined with quotations), and every other free source needs to pander to the clicks-for-advertisers market, so stories are rushed, content is emotional, and quantity is prized over quality. The WSJ is the last remaining quality paper. They increase their prices every year, but I still pay for it. I highly recommend that you do too.
- justincormack 12y ago
  The WSJ is not "the last remaining quality paper". The FT is much better for finance news for a start.
grecy 12y ago
Or why can't HN detect that it's a paywalled article, and automatically change the link to the through-google one?
spindritf 12y ago
I have set refcontrol[1] to forge referral and send google.com for online.wsj.com. Saves you the googling. [1] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/refcontrol/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/refcontrol/
corin_ 12y ago
There may be a big overlap, but "tech-savvy" and "think all information should be free" are not synonymous. Personally I'm against submitting paywall links to HN because it makes it harder for everyone to read, but I have no problem (either overall morally or or a personal level) with content like the WSJ being behind a paywall.

8ig8 12y ago

> Can't we just look this up somewhere else instead of encouraging this bullshit paywall behavior? Or is the quality of information that different? I honestly don't know, but I think in news, time is a factor. Use this post as a test: what non-paywall link would you submit?

gear54rus 12y ago
Just above this comment tree, there's a link to BBC: http://www.bbc.com/news/business-30077122 http://www.bbc.com/news/business-30077122 Not sure how they differ since non-paywall wsj link does not work for me (still has paywall in 2 different browsers).
- melling 12y ago
  It doesn't seem to provide nearly as much information. Not everyone's business model is to give self-entitled individuals free stuff. By posting urls to good articles that are behind pay-walls, you do provide a place to discuss the information, etc., and everyone can still learn. That is assuming at least some of us can read it. I pay for the wsj. Why wouldn't I pay for good research, good writing, knowledge, etc.? People need to earn a living.

forgingahead 12y ago

The quality is night and day. The BBC has unfortunately lost the plot in recent months (go to their homepage and see how many stories are headlined with quotations), and every other free source needs to pander to the clicks-for-advertisers market, so stories are rushed, content is emotional, and quantity is prized over quality. The WSJ is the last remaining quality paper. They increase their prices every year, but I still pay for it. I highly recommend that you do too.

justincormack 12y ago
The WSJ is not "the last remaining quality paper". The FT is much better for finance news for a start.

grecy 12y ago

Or why can't HN detect that it's a paywalled article, and automatically change the link to the through-google one?

spindritf 12y ago

I have set refcontrol[1] to forge referral and send google.com for online.wsj.com. Saves you the googling. [1] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/refcontrol/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/refcontrol/

corin_ 12y ago

There may be a big overlap, but "tech-savvy" and "think all information should be free" are not synonymous. Personally I'm against submitting paywall links to HN because it makes it harder for everyone to read, but I have no problem (either overall morally or or a personal level) with content like the WSJ being behind a paywall.