Edit: Plus, this sort of hysterical article is bunk because there's metric ftons of angel money which renders VC/IB money, sovereign wealth and public IPO moot.
Looks like they track the number of visits you've made to the WSJ in the past. If you use an incognito window you can still use the Google search results.
It's only no longer true if you use an ad blocker. I switched off uBlock, and links from Google and shares work again. They made some kind of change that is ad blocker sensitive relatively recently. My friend who reports for WSJ confirms.
I'm curious, does anyone consider subverting a paywall (even if it's as simple as googling the article title in incognito mode) as being akin to media pirating? At least on an ethical level.
Also, telling people how to do it is probably against the clause also.
Most content I enjoy I'd be willing to pay for. For example, I'd be willing to pay a few bucks a month to Hacker News, if that's what it came to for support.
Edit: Plus, this sort of hysterical article is bunk because there's metric ftons of angel money which renders VC/IB money, sovereign wealth and public IPO moot.