The HN rules are that paywalled content can be posted only if it's trivially bypassable via a free tool. The NYTimes links work on fresh IP addresses as part of a free allowance for new readers, which is why the proxy-based archive website archive.today is able to get through. I'm not a big fan of this being allowed, but there is some thought to it at least, they aren't just allowing anything.
replyIt is a shame that the free tool of choice is a site that put a DDOS attack in its captcha. So my options are not read the article or... not read the article. Nice.
replyYou say that like "commit a felony to read the article" isn't a valid option (/s).
replyThat’d be sensible reasoning IF the articles were already posted with a paywall-free url, but they are not, so as it stands these are essentially just ads.
replyIIRC the staff will usually intentionally elevate bypass links to the top whenever they see them posted in the comments. (And when a link has already been posted they tend to sink comments like yours that complain without providing a link, lol)
replyAgain, why not require the bypassed link right from the gate, then? You’d sidestep people complaining about it and wouldn’t little the comment section with people posting alternative links or asking for them.
replyNYT is the only one profiting getting free publicity for their subscription service here.
Did you create three accounts just to reply? And if so why not stick to just one?
replyI speculated in a different reply that it’s to reduce dups. Two people could post the same article, but if they used different paywall-bypassers they would appear as separate submissions.
replyMy understanding is you’re not supposed to post paywall-cutting links but it’s ok to post them as comments. Perhaps to prevent dupes? Or perhaps there is no such rule.
reply