61–66 of 66 posts
I support this proposal. I support any independent company's right to perform their business how they want. I also support that popular sites that encourage open dialog and discussion should not include companies that disallow public viewing of their content. Let's also extend this to companies that prevent those with content blockers from viewing their pages. Forbes is one, and techcrunch is another. Techcrunch does…
I'd like to see linking to paywalled sites discouraged, but banning them might be too inflexible. Perhaps a change to the submission form that suggests that the submitter looks for alternative sources first, and appends "(paywalled)" to the title if they opt to proceed. Paywalled mass-media articles (e.g. WSJ) are very rarely worth submitting. Articles in paywalled journals (e.g. Nature) where the abstract is accessi…
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12680419
The mods allowed that to be the top comment in the thread for a while to help loop in people who couldn't otherwise read the content.
I'd like to also emphasize that sometimes paywalled sources are the only sources. In this specific case, WSJ was the first source to break the news on the Theranos lawsuit story I posted. I subscribe to WSJ and I received the notification when the article went up, but I looked for other sources before posting. It's not uncommon for WSJ to be the first or only source for new articles.
I would be in favor of adding "Paywall" to these links as well, but I also think that banning paywalled sources is too inflexible.
I'd like to see linking to paywalled sites discouraged, but banning them might be too inflexible. Perhaps a change to the submission form that suggests that the submitter looks for alternative sources first, and appends "(paywalled)" to the title if they opt to proceed. Paywalled mass-media articles (e.g. WSJ) are very rarely worth submitting. Articles in paywalled journals (e.g. Nature) where the abstract is accessi…
I don't think they want us to have this discussion :) - http://imgur.com/a/GdMkz According to me, this should be a top discussion. But the ranking algorithm seems to be way off, like we have been punished in the algorithm. Any thoughts what this could be?
The paywall issue in particular has received plenty of discussion already: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10178989.
I don't think they want us to have this discussion :) - http://imgur.com/a/GdMkz According to me, this should be a top discussion. But the ranking algorithm seems to be way off, like we have been punished in the algorithm. Any thoughts what this could be?
This post was subjected to several ranking penalties, not least of which were user flags and the flamewar software. Many meta-discussions end up this way because they were off-topic for HN by virtue of not being intellectually interesting, which is why we're here. The paywall issue in particular has received plenty of discussion already: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10178989 .