I can't think of any large downsides, it would mean every submission would have an available snapshot for the given time, and we would no longer need a user comment to provide this.
It's also IMHO a misplaced or false criticism, per my other comments in this thread.
You don't think phrasing like "There's a thing called 'copyright'", as if I'm not aware of what copyright is, isn't condescending?
Now, either of you relate that concept to a suggestion that HN link to archive.org
The premise was that this is so obvious that my naivety is funny. But no, you don't want to debate that point - Why would you care to consider otherwise, it's not you losing face if correct.
Here's an uninvited counterpoint anyway:
https://blog.archive.org/2024/03/01/fair-use-in-action-at-th...
You'll also notice that the link in this post (https://archive.is/TajtJ) shows a 'log in' button, implying that log-in credentials where not used (or abused) to get/share this snapshot.
That such a blog post exists at least suggests the legal “question” exists, which again is the only thing I said in the first place.
No, not really. You just seem to be trying to pick a fight.
IANAL, but it would seem to me HN couldn't be liable, since it is a third party (archive.is/org) caching the site. In fact, I always assumed that's why the links aren't removed.
further, if intent would be a possible defence, I already mentioned that archiving everything looks better than only having links when there are paywalls, active or otherwise.
from a moral position, I don't think HN moves the needle wrt enabling bypassing - most if not all HN users are likely fully capable of using archiving sites themselves, if not automating the process themselves.
How much work to enable auto paywall busting? >$0
How much reward? $0
How much extra risk that a publisher will make your life difficult, regardless of morality or the letter of the law? >0%
I can't imagine why they would bother when HN users seem happy enough to do the work for free.