The entitlement people have for free news is one of the major reasons why our political systems have backslid so fast over the past few decades.
You get what you pay for.
Posting a paywalled content is similar to posting an application that you need to buy-first try-after, and that in a community that usually refuses to use a SaaS because it requires an email address right off the bat.
There's a compromise solution, HN could put a red dot or similar next to the article show it's behind the paywall.
If neither of those can let you read it, then just ignore that paywalled URL. They don't get the click, and you haven't lost anything.
[0]: https://archive.is/
In recent weeks, however, Archive Today has been throwing endless CAPTCHA requests to many people. Given that there are few if any well-known alternatives (12ft.io, Ghost Archive, and Google Cache are all far less effective), this is a real problem. I've raised the issue with dang.
Why stop there though?
Should HN the discussion group associated with seed fund investor group Y Combinator also ban discussion of paywalled services?
Isn't the least expected lowest bar for entry here that someone should either be able to work around a paywall or alternatively subscribe and support a content source?
For me it looks like an old pals network with a sense of elitism.
All us mates who can afford it can add paywalled links just for us to read together.
Oh good one stevie, I really liked the (paywalled) link on hackernews this morning.
Shame about the blebs (non IT specialists) not being able to read it eh!
It is not inclusive
One compromise might be a feature allowing users to permanently block/hide submissions to domains they can't access anyway.
Surely if you’re on hacker news you know how to get around a paywall??