Ever wondered what the "web" link was for? It Googles the link title. Accessing via Google gets around the paywall.

I agree that this post is ethically dubious, but at the same time we actively bypass the paywall anyway.

The Google workaround no longer works for the WSJ.

It still works if you use some plugins to set the user agent to Googlebot and other things to trick the WSJ into thinking you are from Google.

Sometimes searching the title in Google works, sometimes it does not.

I'm really against paywalls because it is discrimination against the poor. It is like having a pay bathroom.

In this case, money you should pay for bread at a supermarket can be considered a "paywall and discrimination against the poor".

There could be couple of reasons why instinctively we think about paying for bread as a mutually beneficial exchange of goods for money, and about paying for internet articles as a "paywall that discriminates the poor":

(a) Articles used to be free, and many (in other publications) are still free.

(b) There is a very little incremental cost to WSJ if a single article will be read for free by someone, as opposed to the supermarket example above where an incremental loaf of bread has a very real economic cost.

But that doesn't change the fact the WSJ article is a real good that cost a lot of money to produce and therefore should be paid for.

edit: grammar

It's a product and they sell it. That way they get to run their business. No one questions a software developer's remuneration model.

Huh. Could have sworn it worked, I honestly tested it.

Whatever, the same news is available elsewhere anyway. The Web button does that too.

Worked for me just now.

I'd be very curious to know if it actually increased WSJ subscriber revenue? Because I doubt it decreased their hosting bill.

turn off adblock for WSJ in chrome incognito and it works

The actual purpose of the web link is to check if an article is original.

nudge nudge wink wink say no more.

Eh, speak for yourself. I found it helpful.