Discussion: Add rule against paywalled content to HN Guidelines

I like the idea, but might people who have access to the content accidentally forget that others have to pay for it?

Nay. The Wall Street Journal and NY Times have garnered great discussion here on technical and business topics.

Agreed, yay.

The FAQ is pretty clear on the HN position regarding paywalls:

> Are paywalls ok?

> It's ok to post stories from sites with paywalls that have workarounds.

> In comments, it's ok to ask how to read an article and to help other users do so. But please don't post complaints about paywalls. Those are off topic.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html

More description from 'dang.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10178989

Although it's from a couple of years ago, I haven't seen a moderator make any comment to indicate that this stance has changed. Here's a similar Ask HN from a year ago where 'sctb points back to 'dang's Tell HN.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12683017

Yes, please. It's a two way street, if they want the traffic, open the content. We all know there's clear value to the traffic a well positioned HN post brings.

Yay. They don't deserve the traffic.

It would at least be nice to have a clear tag to indicate that the content you're going to is behind a paywall, e.g.,

[PAYWALL] I criticized Google. It got me fired. That’s how corporate power works

I think that even if a policy were implemented that banned paywalls, it would be extremely difficult to enforce. For readers who have subscriptions, it may be non-obvious during submission that it's going to end up paywalled for guests. Some sites have anti-ad-blocking technology, which only have a paywall if adblocked (like The Atlantic). How would these sites be classified? Similarly, does it really count as a paywall if the site has a counter that requires payment after x visits? Some percentage of readers won't hit it, and some will. Keeping track of which sites have these types of soft paywalls might be overly taxing.

I think the current stance is fine, just because it's easier for moderation to deal with. Trying to keep a running blacklist or implementing some kind of detector would be difficult. Responding to an article once it's on the front page would be useless, as you'd have discovered it only by trial and error in the first place.

I disagree: if it's a site I can't access, that's my problem. I am in favor of more news services instituting paywalls. The problem is related to the failure of advert-driven news sites to survive, and the ongoing advert-blocker warfare. Quality reporting may well need revenue streams that adverts alone can't provide. Therefore, by preferring "free" sites you are biasing away from sites that may have chosen to require payment in order to ensure quality.

I enjoy reading HN too and have no access to any paywalled content. Still, I think the discussion is more important. Therefore people who do have access should have a platform to discuss about subjects. That platform being HN.

I would feel more left out if I would miss the discussion completely, because things are discussed elsewhere.

We do not need to participate all in every discussion ;-)