I'd happily provide one but I've had enough of being repeatedly trashed and denigrated here for posting too many archive links.
I understand that you are pissed off (as am I too) but debating with an army of bots, LLMs, wankers and Russians is unfortunately the status quo, quotidien.
On the bright side there are lots of lovely folk hereabouts with a large thing between their ears.
That escalated quickly and I enjoyed this comment a lot
Like imagine if there was some 90 minute tech documentary on Netflix that was worth discussing here. Could I just rip it and link to a copy on my Google Drive? How long would that link stay up? I can't imagine long. I guess the conclusion based off how these sites operate is that piracy doesn't count when it's just words.
Heck, I find it odd that we don't even try to model the problem, let alone solve.
For example, there's no submitter-tickbox for "this requires additional access", no icon to distinguish between the kinds of items, and and we don't even an informal convention like putting [paywall] in the title.
Without even tracking that information, it's very difficult to address the pain-points, such as allowing the submitter to preemptively provide alternate links, or allowing readers to select against certain sites they've already decided they won't subscribe to.
Regarding the second link, I'll happily engage with something specific dang said on this topic if you want to link to it, but a link to every time he said the word "paywalls" is not a productive contribution to this conversation.
Thanks to Disney and others, we have drifted far from that. If you make the rules too complicated and/or rigid, people will stop following them.