[klez]

Wait, what? How would adding an indication that the article is paywalled inhibit/hamper support for high quality content?

If an article is paywalled and I don't have any indication about this, I would open the link, notice it's paywalled and then decide whether to pay or not. If a tag is present, this just moves the decision early in the process.

So, again, how would not using such a tag help support high quality journalism?

[plufz]

I'm not sure if your question is rhetorical or not. But if you really are wondering, it's because if we click the link, chances are that we read that first paragraph of text paywalled articles usually show. That makes us interested/curious and we might pay to view it. We also feel more invested in the content after that first click.

If we only have the title in the HN feed chances are lower that we will buy the content instead of simply scrolling by. Since the latter that takes less effort.

We humans don't always make rational choices, so nudging us in the direction of paying for content – if we want to support payed content – will of course increase the amount we spend on content.

[aaomidi]

I disagree with this line of thought.

Giving readers a fair warning is the right way to go.

[klez]

Not rhetorical, I was really asking.

Thanks for clarifying.