Not to be rude, but are you kidding?
HN has provided you with a workaround, WSJ has provided you with free content, and that is not enough?
How about signing up for the WSJ?
HN has provided you with a workaround, WSJ has provided you with free content, and that is not enough?
How about signing up for the WSJ?
No. The volume of links to this one particular site with a very aggressive paywall has been increasing. Further, HN administrators actually change links pointing to alternative sites over to paywalled WSJ URLs when WSJ has the story (I know, because it happened with a story I submitted).
WSJ has provided you with free content
They're not ad supported?
How about signing up for the WSJ?
I might consider it, if they weren't so obnoxious with the paywall, along with inundating their pages with ads and completely blocking the loading of content when using an ad blocker. I will not reward that type of behavior, and neither should anyone else. I reported them to Google for cloaking a few weeks ago because under certain circumstances, the paywall comes up even when clicking over from Google (so, to your argument that "HN has provided [me] with a workaround" - that isn't always the case because they flagrantly violate Google's anti-cloaking policy under certain circumstances, on top of everything else).
> I will not reward that type of behavior
My mind is being blown. I'm completely feeding right now.
A few days ago I was talking to a guy in real life about pokemon go and he was both genuinely angry at the developers and also, unironically, called them entitled. I was flabbergasted. Entitled for making something and allowing this guy to use it, but him being genuinely angry at people he'd never met, nor had any dealings with, for not providing enough value was completely reasonable to him.
All I know is that if I ever run a business or accidentally become a celebrity, I'm keeping an army of PR suits between me and the general public. Too many people indignant about too many things to attempt honest public discourse with my real name attached.
I made a statement that it might be nice if WSJ gave HN users the same treatment they give to Google users. You've made a radical generalization about someone based upon a single statement on a comment thread.
People that make radical generalizations about others based upon one data point are among the most dangerous in our society. Hitler did this, as do religiously motivated terrorists, racists, etc. Upon what other data points do you make such generalizations? Race? Religion? Sex?
People that make radical generalizations about others based upon one data point are among the most dangerous in our society.
People that get indignant and demanding about things are some of the most dangerous in society. Dispassionate egoists don't blow themselves up.
Given the sheer volume of WSJ paywall links posted here, combined with the significance of YC, surely someone at YC could call someone at WSJ and get them to bypass the paywall when the referrer is HN.
It was an explanation of a problem and a suggested solution. Nothing more, nothing less.
>Dispassionate egoists don't blow themselves up.
Given your comments above, it's pretty clear that you are far from dispassionate in your hatred of those with whom you disagree.
"Explanation of a problem" even here you're showing of what I've accused you of. You have a problem. HN doesn't seem to have a problem. WSJ doesn't seem to have a problem. But you're phrasing it like it's something objectively wrong. It's not a problem it's your problem.
You don't like something and you want it a different way. That's fine. But adding all of this shit about them being abusive, obnoxious, calling them ridiculous; shows that no, you don't just want something to be a certain way you think that there's a failure on someones part if it isn't.
Now you appear to be trying to what, back peddle in to the part of disinterested bystander? At least own up to your sense of entitlement. It's as defensible of a position as any other.
EDIT:
dispassionate in your hatred of those with whom you disagree.
Hatred is what you're getting from this? Yeah this isn't going anywhere.
> this isn't going anywhere.
You're correct, this isn't going anywhere.
"If they gave me all the content upfront for free without ads, I would then choose pay for it".
You expect us to believe this?