[smacktoward]

Or you could always, you know, subscribe to the WSJ.

The way HN reacts to paywalls is beyond ridiculous. It's like if every comment thread on a story about a Netflix original series was nothing but questions and answers about where to go to torrent it.

[dang]

Please don't take HN threads on ultra-repetitive tangents like this. It's tedious, and there's no point in rehearsing it in every thread.

[mindslight]

One straightforward magnet link solves the Netflix problem. The problem with the web is that running hostile code creates endless types of fuckery, and thus endless ways of sidestepping that fuckery.

[Dylan16807]

If the story was a 20 second clip I would sure hope it's hosted elsewhere and I don't have to buy a full subscription.

[osrec]

I see maybe 1 article every 3 months that I want to read on there. Must I subscribe for this? I'd much rather just skip the article; It wont cause me much unhappiness if I do.

[autumnaterr]

I agree with paying for journalism BUT think about just how important is this particular piece is.

Edit: the last 'is' added.

[grzm]

Another perspective is if it isn't that important, there's little need to read it, much less going out of one's way to bypass a paywall.

[Dylan16807]

This is a fine thought by itself. As long as you don't imply that anyone doing an unimportant action is behaving incorrectly.

In other words, someone that says "I don't care much but I looked anyway" is not a hypocrite.

[rising-sky]

"I have no interest but I showed interest" Strikes me odd, and should likely be confusing to an observer. It seems an oxymoron which is somewhat analogous to hypocrisy

[Dylan16807]

Only if they say they have absolutely no interest. If they just say it's unimportant, or not worth paying for, there shouldn't be any confusion.

Relatedly, I think it's worth 0 cents to go flip my phone over on the table. But I'm going to do it anyway.

[autumnaterr]

You mean cure FOMO? :D