Let’s be honest, we’ve all seen an interesting HN post, clicked through and then been frustrated the page is behind a WSJ or the verge paywall.
Wouldn’t it be better for society if the info was available to all?
Ban HN posts with links behind paywalls – YES or NO?
1–8 of 8 posts
Re: Ban HN posts with links behind paywalls – YES or NO?
#2No. Good information can be behind a payed site, and possibly, more investigative. Free sites can sometimes be less verified or partial information. I think the goal would be to have the most accurate link possible, rather than many links that only contain a subset of the information.
Re: Ban HN posts with links behind paywalls – YES or NO?
#3Optimize for the world you exist in, not the world you wish existed. No paywall link ban, although I’d be happy to pitch into a fund to buy gift links.
Re: Ban HN posts with links behind paywalls – YES or NO?
#4From the FAQ:
> Are paywalls ok?
> It's ok to post stories from sites with paywalls that have workarounds.
> In comments, it's ok to ask how to read an article and to help other users do so. But please don't post complaints about paywalls. Those are off topic.
Re: Ban HN posts with links behind paywalls – YES or NO?
#5[dead]
Re: Ban HN posts with links behind paywalls – YES or NO?
#6You get what you pay for
Re: Ban HN posts with links behind paywalls – YES or NO?
#7I'd say yes. If Hacker News is free, it makes no sense to have "ads" to buy news subscriptions. I won't buy a subscription for ALL the paywalled sites: NYTimes, Atlantic, Bloomberg, whatever. If it's posted here it's either free to read or useless
Re: Ban HN posts with links behind paywalls – YES or NO?
#8No.
WP or NYT behind paywall is totally OK: Some of the few quality media companies