Hacker News Reader

Comment by FriendlyNormie | Hacker News Reader

If I repeatedly linked to my own site with a title that interested you but all you could see on my page was an unskippable ad demanding that you sign up and pay for my unrelated product, wouldn’t my site be banned from HN? Why do sites like nytimes get a free pass with their paywalls?

View on HN

Paywalled articles are accepted on HN if there's a known workaround:

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

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

If it's hard paywall with no workaround, it shouldn't be on HN and you should flag it or email the mods.

I feel the same way. My intuition tells me only some small percentage of HN readers have a NYT subscription, so these posts are of little use. Though the posts keep appearing, so perhaps I'm wrong, and it's really substantial...like at least 25%? What's the threshold where it makes sense?

The value in HN is mostly in the comments, not in its role as a link aggregator. A good 90% of the time when the link is to something I cannot access I can still get all the salient points necessary to understand and benefit from the discussion just from reading the comments. (Also, if it is a story on some reasonably current event or some well known subject there is a good chance a quick visit to a search engine will find some other article that covers nearly everything in the submitted article but that I can read).

I think of HN as like a social gathering. Each discussion thread is like a small group of people at a party standing around talking about some topic. It's a big party, and there are dozens of such small groups, constantly forming and breaking up, as people move from group to group.

If I'm at a party, and I see a group discussing a book they have read and I have not, I'm either going to ignore their discussion completely if I'm not interested in the topic or am planning on reading the book later and want to avoid spoilers, or go ahead and join in if I'm interested in the topic and and not worried about spoilers and they are discussing it in general enough terms.

I'm not going to try to tell everyone at the party that they should only talk about books that everyone there has read.

If there is some particular site(s) that someone just does not want to see on HN at all, it's easy to address that with a couple bookmarklets. Here's one that will hide NY Times articles from the listings:

  javascript: (function () {
    var stories = document.getElementsByClassName('storylink');
    for (var i = 0; i < stories.length; ++i)
      if (stories[i].href.includes('://www.nytimes'))
        stories[i].parentNode.parentNode.hidden = 'hidden';
  })()

It would be easy to expand it to cover multiple sites.

Here's one to unhide them:

  javascript:(function () {
    var stories = document.getElementsByClassName('storylink');
    for (var i = 0; i < stories.length; ++i)
      stories[i].parentNode.parentNode.hidden = '';
  })()

Stick those bookmarklets someplace easy to invoke, and then at the cost of one click per page of 30 links you don't have to see the site(s) again.

Lots of us have already turned off javascript for NYT, so we're not seeing that.

Papers of record/highly reputable sources should be held to a different standard.

I'll take the bait. It's 2020, is the NYT still considered highly reputable? Or is it just a "loveable brand name" at this point?

That is a fair question, in my opinion. Depending on the topic, the New York Times isn't always reputable.

Fair question. My response wasn’t meant to be trollish or beg the question. You can read a summary of the New York Times’ reputation in its WP article. In summary, it is still well regarded for accuracy and thoroughness by its peers. Popular opinion is still high relative to its peers but has lowered. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times#Reputation

The WP article also links to the paper of record article. Papers of record can be important even if they are disliked because of the sources they have access to, and the extent to which they influence stories by reporting on them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_of_record

I have never seen a nyt article that wasn't an op-ed or maybe magazine that wasn't reputable.

I wonder why they had to "rededicate [them]selves to the fundamental mission of Times journalism" after Trump was elected?

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/13/us/elections/to-our-reade...

I don't pay for this site, but can see the full article just fine. I don't know what the rules are exactly, but some of us do have access (and ublock takes care of ads)

what browser, etc are you using? I'm on FF with uBlock in Canada and always get the NYT's own login/subscribe overlay that while not an ad is essentially a redirect to a login or register page.

I guess it works though; I'm not about to sign up to the NYT or WSJ and I don't even bother clicking their links, so mission accomplished!

Use ublock to disable javascript

Thanks - I run ublock origin but haven't really played with options like that. Worked great!

> Why do sites like nytimes get a free pass with their paywalls?

I've never encountered a paywall on the NYT links on HN and I'm not a subscriber. I'm guessing the complaints here are from people who only have access to browsers with no means of blocking (or ignoring) JavaScript.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com