I don't think he was suggesting that paywalled articles should never be read, but rather that they're ill-suited to content aggregators like HN, where you're likely to visit 10 domains for every 10 links you click. Particularly because the vast majority of paywalls are subscription-based, not pay-per-content, paywalls and content aggregators aren't very compatible.

This.

Wapo has a huge social media team that tries to get free traffic from sites like us.

The paywall is a clumsy and ham-fisted attempt to monetize that traffic. It is unfriendly to the community and provides no value to many non subscribers.

I have no issue with ads or polite monetization (I am a publisher myself)... but paywall sites really don't belong on content aggregators.

If I posted a teaser article with thin content for a $199 report on HN, I would likely be banned as spam. Paywalled articles are very similar to this in principle.

Don't you know that the "Fuck you, pay me" crede only applies to tech workers.

"Fuck you, pay me" is applicable when someone is owed. Using a non-paywalled site over a paywalled one is more like using a FOSS project over paid software, which here on HN is quite popular. I don't see the supposed hypocrisy.