The HN rules are that paywalled content can be posted only if it's trivially bypassable via a free tool. The NYTimes links work on fresh IP addresses as part of a free allowance for new readers, which is why the proxy-based archive website archive.today is able to get through. I'm not a big fan of this being allowed, but there is some thought to it at least, they aren't just allowing anything.
It is a shame that the free tool of choice is a site that put a DDOS attack in its captcha. So my options are not read the article or... not read the article. Nice.
That’d be sensible reasoning IF the articles were already posted with a paywall-free url, but they are not, so as it stands these are essentially just ads.
IIRC the staff will usually intentionally elevate bypass links to the top whenever they see them posted in the comments. (And when a link has already been posted they tend to sink comments like yours that complain without providing a link, lol)
Again, why not require the bypassed link right from the gate, then? You’d sidestep people complaining about it and wouldn’t little the comment section with people posting alternative links or asking for them.
NYT is the only one profiting getting free publicity for their subscription service here.
I speculated in a different reply that it’s to reduce dups. Two people could post the same article, but if they used different paywall-bypassers they would appear as separate submissions.
My understanding is you’re not supposed to post paywall-cutting links but it’s ok to post them as comments. Perhaps to prevent dupes? Or perhaps there is no such rule.
IMO a good approach would be to surface the status of links to readers, with an icon for "pay-walled" or "register-walled", then see how organic voting affects things.
So if I posted a link to something nobody can actually read, does that mean all downvotes are unfair violations if the social contract?
Availability is itself a meaningful feature for curating the feed.
Sometimes the comment section rescues things, other times it's a decision between two competing submissions, where—all else being equal—the accessible version ought to win.
while that would be nice, generaly there are many knowledgeable comments several pay grades abovethe nyt staff, here in the comments, which if you wait for them to build and then do a page search for your terms of interest, can often take you painlessly to a susinct synopsis of the issues under discussion
Probably the problem is ignored because of well known archive sites that circumvent the subscription issue. But, I do agree with the suggestion of marking posts as paywalled, to give people more choice on whether to open them.
odmcownckexnn · · focus · HN ↗
If I cannot read without a subscription (or a damn paywall removed), it shouldn’t be posted here. This is tantamount to posting an ad for an NYT sub.
creatonez · · focus · HN ↗
ectospheno · · focus · HN ↗
gpm · · focus · HN ↗
ojihgfhoniyfc · · focus · HN ↗
creatonez · · focus · HN ↗
kdkdkdkwkd · · focus · HN ↗
NYT is the only one profiting getting free publicity for their subscription service here.
Aquitard · · focus · HN ↗
gumby · · focus · HN ↗
_ifton · · focus · HN ↗
gumby · · focus · HN ↗
jasomill · · focus · HN ↗
FYI, many US public libraries offer free access to NYT subscription content (which can be used to generate free links).
creatonez · · focus · HN ↗
But to be clear, the rule is against unofficial mirroring. Officially sanctioned methods are fine.
Terr_ · · focus · HN ↗
tedd4u · · focus · HN ↗
Terr_ · · focus · HN ↗
Availability is itself a meaningful feature for curating the feed.
Sometimes the comment section rescues things, other times it's a decision between two competing submissions, where—all else being equal—the accessible version ought to win.
Mistletoe · · focus · HN ↗
metalman · · focus · HN ↗
baranul · · focus · HN ↗