I think many people, myself included, would argue that that's immoral. The fact that you don't want to pay for access to The New Yorker is fine, but it doesn't mean that we should facilitate your desire to not pay, and that we've effectively normalized ignoring even reasonable copyright rules is a real problem for the industry (we can argue about the merits all we like, but pretending we shouldn't have to pay for an article with little public interest, published this week, is pretty absurd).

We can look at aggregators like HN as a way to curate who you should be giving your money to, or we can use them to facilitate infringement, making publishers rely on sketchier and sketchier methods to stay afloat.

start paying for your news. you won't regret it. three decades of free news leave you hanging bored and annoyed and misunderstanding humanity.

if you want to stay tethered to this reality, commit to the pot. it's recursive and cumulative. otherwise you are left to research from free sources which leave you in 'directed' narratives, divergent and polarizing, devouring your fallacies while feeding off your bias.

free beer is never a better of the available choices.