To read the article in full, please click the "web" link above, between "past" and "[...] comments".
WSJ articles can be read in full, if you click through from Google search results.
Note: simply copying the Google link and pasting it here won't work. Presumably Google needs to be the referrer.
I mean sure, you can go the "click web, then the right Google result" route. But that's like submitting a link to Adobe's most recent Photoshop update and then tell people "you can download Photoshop for free by starting your Bittorent client".
WSJ wants to hide behind a paywall. That's fine for them. But HN shouldn't be sending them traffic and enable that behavior.
The paywall is part of the WSJ's business model. HN submissions include the source of the article. If you choose not to support the WSJ or their business practices, you have the choice of not reading their articles.
Even with the web links, that often doesn't work with WSJ any more with how they cookie; so I'm very supportive of non-paywalled links as a preference.
I've heard people describe problems they have with the WSJ web links. I don't deny that they do, but I'm surprised I haven't seen them myself. I'm just running Safari with Ghostery. Never had an issue with WSJ (and I don't have a subscription).
The barrier to entry is literally clicking or tapping twice.
But that's like submitting a link to Adobe's most recent Photoshop update and then tell people "you can download Photoshop for free by starting your Bittorent client".
No-one's cracking the WSJ site, sharing someone else's subscription, or any other dubious behaviour: we're simply saying that "WSJ choose to disable their paywall for visitors referred by Google, so if you wish to avoid their paywall, you can use this practice, which WSJ allow".