All of these NYT stories bring up a blocking modal dialog requiring me to log in or create an account (I guess this is a slight improvement from making me pay). Is this the same for everyone else? Why do other sites that show a dismissable overlay get raked over the coals as if they are criminals?
What value is there in posting a link on HN if it's behind a pay (or temporarily free) wall? This goes double for the WSJ. Let's not debate business models here, but asking what's the intent/requirements, and why the double standard?
This is a good point that Hacker News aren't generally aware of (judging by the number of comments about it, it's good to know I'm not alone). I'm not sure why it was flagged.
There is no rule against pay walled content, and most NYT stories have numerous people complaining about it. The NYT and WSJ posts still get votes because they're large enough that many people are subscribers, and their paywalls are trivial to bypass.
The workarounds for WSJ do not work anymore for me, eg the redirect from FarceBorg will still get the "subscribe" page. Also FT. They appear to have removed workarounds. Are they STILL valid HN submissions ... even when there is NO workaround?
Or maybe there is one and i haven't twigged to it yet:-)>
Ah yes, "Bypass Paywalls" i do have this extension installed and have been using it for months. WSJ seems to have wizened to his workarounds, and others like the FB redirect. Eg it does not work for
The latest release notes from seven days ago say they fix the WSJ, but there's also a commit saying that they are temporarily reverting while they wait for Mozilla to sign the update. So there seems to be a way to bypass it still, though I'm not sure what it is.
I don't buy this, there must be some false positive rate in some of these sites. I've been told that I've viewed too many articles on sites I've never visited before.
It's happened at home too where I live alone and have not seen my IP address change in a very long time.
I was specifically talking about NYT, not other sites.
I responded the way I did because it’s a common (annoying) trope for people to complain about paywalls in one breath, then in another breath complain about ads/tracking/lack of independent journalism.
What value is there in posting a link on HN if it's behind a pay (or temporarily free) wall? This goes double for the WSJ. Let's not debate business models here, but asking what's the intent/requirements, and why the double standard?