No, if it means other folks would be unable to keep using HN - therefore creating a bias in audience towards folks with money to spent (often great ideas and insights are a result of constraints in resources - this community thrives because of it)
No. Its usefulness is proportional to its size, and a paid version would just mean amplifying the bad sides of this site: elitism and US-centric middle-class posturing. Computing is at its best when it serves humanity as a whole, and this place, being one of the most diverse and large places to talk about computing, benefits from not being only populated by bored Silicon Valley FAANG workers.
On the other hand, as a relatively heavy user, a paywall means I could stop wasting time here and actually start doing some work.
Cannot agree more. Putting ads and other distractions (like awards you can buy and give), are also a form of payment that I may or may not tolerate. Reddit went down that route, and HN reminds me of the early days of that platform (Aaron we miss you, we will never forget you were killed by the state).
So far the only thing on the internets I voluntire to pay is LWN - for quality of articles.
HN is in worse position - it's "just" mass and quality comments which is easier to copy, eg. lobster alredy exist and there "was" slashdot before (but form is somewhat unreadable...).
But if I had a choice - ads or paywall - then paywall is superior for both sides, possibly even the future.
No, if it means other folks would be unable to keep using HN - therefore creating a bias in audience towards folks with money to spent (often great ideas and insights are a result of constraints in resources - this community thrives because of it)