Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by 7loopscom | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

7loopscom

[flagged]

View on HN

If there's a workaround, it's ok. Users usually post workarounds in the thread.

This is in the FAQ at https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html and there's more explanation here:

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

https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...

There's a good chance your local library carries a subscription. Sometimes even online subscriptions. Take the article title/date with you and I'm sure you could get a hold of it to read in-depth.

I know here in Toronto, our library subscribes via Pressreader which gives access to a large number of periodicals and newspapers.

https://www.torontopubliclibrary.ca/detail.jsp?Entt=RDMEDB01...

Or try an aggregate service like Apple News where you pay a little more total but get wide-reaching access to a large number of pubs.

edit: Sorry, it doesn't look like Pressreader has WSJ, but they do have a large number of other American pubs. Apple News+ has WSJ, I believe.

https://www.pressreader.com/catalog/usa

The valid set of articles for discussion on HN are not limited to "content that can be obtained without paying for it"

The point is that it's an interesting article. It's not hard to search for the keywords in the title and find some other news outlet covering it, albeit in less comprehensive detail, or look for comments that reiterate the salient details.

You install this Firefox extension to get past many paywalls

https://github.com/iamadamdev/bypass-paywalls-firefox

Do you prefer ads or paywalls?

Nobody's ever happy..

Ads. The social contract of the web was: link aggregators bring traffic to websites which need views to ad-support themselves. WSJ doesnt need it. (This article is not available on archive.is or anywhere. You actually need to pay to see it).

There is no such social contract.

thats why RSS and those like/share buttons existed

good point

You just made me realize I'm a bit of a hypocrite. I don't want ads, but I will never pay for this either. Then again, I don't really want to read it anyway hehe

That being said, if ads actual ads and not targeted surveillance crap, I'd be ok with that. I might have to change my adblocker settings to reflect that...

You should load up the Privacy Badger extension. It lets you adjust the settings to keep trackers at bay.

Forgive me if I'm missing the point of your question, but isn't the answer obviously ads? Even if they couldn't be blocked, at least they don't prevent me from accessing the content. I guess ideally there would be ads with a pay option to remove them, but that's just from a consumer point of view.

Regardless, I realize we shouldn't be complaining about paywalls in comments. I just wanted to address your question.

When you block the ads, the publication doesn't receive revenue from them as the impression is lost.

Then, the publication suffers and the quality falls.

But this way the people who don't have a subscription (which we can safely assume to be GREATER than those who have ad blockers) don't even open the page, so they still don't get any revenue.

???

I put that on par with: because I'm not paying for an Aston Martin, I don't get to drive one to work every day. Thus, I have nothing to contribute to discussion on daily drivers of Aston Martin cars. Just because I want to join the discussion doesn't mean I'm entitled to one of their cars anyway. Aston Martin isn't weeping for me because I don't get to drive one of their cars.

Why would the publication just give away the product of their labour for free? [Especially the WSJ. That's against their cornerstone beliefs AFAIU.]

This is easy : I have an ad blocker, so I’m happy with ads.

Blogs= spam

Paid articles = ???

Reply on news.ycombinator.com