Ask HN: Please ban links to e-commerce checkout pages and paywalled articles | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: Please ban links to e-commerce checkout pages and paywalled articles

3 pointsgrandalf16 comments

HN does not feature advertisements on the home page, and it should not feature paywalled links, as they are essentially just ads for content that is blocked unless the user pays.

Similarly, HN should not allow links that automatically add an item to a user's e-commerce cart and then direct the user to the checkout page.

If not an outright ban, both of these types of links should be flagged to prevent inadvertent clicking.

View on HN

Obviously checkout links aren't valid submissions here, and you should flag them so we can kill them and perhaps ban the sites.

Paywalled articles are different. That's a settled matter on HN. The rule is that paywalled articles are ok when there's a workaround:

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10178989

Yes, the paywalls suck, but it would suck worse to deprive HN of the better NYT, WSJ, Economist, New Yorker, etc., articles.

I disagree. Do you think discussing a book online is wrong if people have to pay to buy the book?

That's fine if it's a blog post about the book containing some excerpts and some analysis, but that's quite different from a link that simply leads to a form to fill out one's credit card info!

For a lot of people the comments on HN are the equivalent of the excerpts and the analysis - it's a place to discuss the article. Yeah you can't take part if you haven't read the article, like you can't take part in a discussion of a book you refuse to buy.

That's a good point, however considering that there are many thousands of books one might choose to read, by your logic the HN front page ought to be filled with "add to cart" links for those books on Amazon. Frankly even Amazon lets you read a few pages of a book and reviews before deciding whether to purchase.

I think the more important question is whether the HN home page should be directly supporting revenue generation efforts by media orgs. They contrive article titles to be clickbait, only to load a paywall when the user clicks with absolutely no context, no preview, etc.

This is about HN taking a stand against being used simply as a revenue generation "channel" by media orgs. I'd be hard pressed to find a more intelligent, wealthy, and influential demographic than HN readers. News orgs have realized this and they actively promote stories on HN to drive revenue.

> This is about HN taking a stand

My personal opinion, probably shared by others, is that I'm not really interested in HN 'taking a stand' about anything. The website is fine just doing its job without any aspirations to change the world.

My advice would be to vote with your feet by not up-voting or visiting stories that you don't like. If other people feel the same way they'll die away. I would guess most people don't feel the same way, so they probably won't.

PG has written about the folly of paywalls, so it could simply be a stand against that. HN should not be a place where marketers go to get their clickbait stories viral "clicks" and "impressions".

I'd rather HN was the kind of place that didn't take a stand against anything. It's a community utility and it would be a shame if it was abused to make points for issues which to be honest I think are at the student-politics level of petty things to be worked up about.

I'm not being facetious when I say if you don't like them don't post them or read them. Please don't try and stop me reading or posting them just because you don't like them.

Of course if the HN people themselves have a strong opinion on it they're entitled to do what they want with the site, but as the admins have said, they don't have that strong opinion.

> I'd rather HN was the kind of place that didn't take a stand against anything.

So would I. But it takes a stand against political discussion and against changing bad titles in submissions, so I think taking one against paywalls would at least be a beneficial stand to take.

Ok, well nice debating with you but I don't think we'll agree on this topic so I won't keep bothering you.

No worries, I don't feel all that strongly about it, I do think it would be helpful to use the power of HN to encourage the NYT and others to offer free access to stories linked directly from HN.

> Similarly, HN should not allow links that automatically add an item to a user's e-commerce cart and then direct the user to the checkout page.

I didn't notice them. Do you have 2 or 3 recent examples?

So articles from the WSJ and NYT should be banned?

Getting a link on the HN home page results in hundreds of thousands of clicks from highly intelligent, successful people, many of whom are influential and wealthy.

The WSJ and NYT should remove the paywall for all links originating on HN.

In the meantime, yes, they should be banned.

They can't identify users from HN like me who are not highly intelligent, successful, influential or wealthy though.

Another problem is some people don't hit these paywalls because they do not frequent these sites, it's usually based on number of articles read per period, so it's frustrating for some and others have no idea there even is a pay wall.

The biggest problem is won't it limit the discussions that can be had?

> others have no idea there even is a pay wall.

True.

> won't it limit the discussions that can be had?

Perhaps, but if it were someone creating Amazon links to books that automatically added the book to cart and redirected the user to checkout, I think we'd accurately see the paywall link spam for what it is. I don't think there is really anything that is covered by paywall sites that doesn't have solid coverage in AP stories or other general interest, non-paywalled publications.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com