These sites sometimes have interesting content so we allow them to be posted. Some great pieces are written by very established news papers with skilled career journalists. Many members pay for these sites, others often post workarounds. Why automatically ignore all the paywalled sites that may in fact contain high quality content? If such articles are so truly unpopular then they won't make frontpage, can't that filter be sufficient enough?
I won't subscribe to Medium because the quality is very spotty, but I don't mind stories getting linked here. I can check the link first, and it doesn't ruin my day when I hit my Medium limit. If they don't want me seeing their content I'm happy not to waste my time on their site.
These sites require blocking both javascript and cookies: NYT, Washington Post, MIT Technology Review, Wired, National Geographic and LA Times
These sites require only blocking cookies: Medium, Scientific American, Quartz, The Atlantic, Bloomberg and Harvard Business Review
The one downside is when the linked article is an "interactive feature/story" and it's a site which requires blocking javascript. It's an annoyance to temporarily allow such an article's source, but I'd rather have to deal with that than reaching their "free limit".
I'd much prefer if submitters choose more user-respecting sources, but until then I refuse to feel guilty over stopping these intrusive sites and their dark patterns.
The only source I wish was permanently banned is Financial Times -- every article is paywalled and provides no snippet.
Maybe there is a business in creating groupbuys for subs. A humblebundle for subscribtion media.
https://lifehacker.com/how-to-read-medium-articles-for-free-...