Click the "web" link under the article title, then click on the first result.

And when you click the first result, open it in incognito/private window. Otherwise WSJ sees your cookies and knows you've been there before.

That doesn't always work.

Source: I'm on mobile right now, it doesn't work. Country of origin and/or incognito mode could be a factor.

A lot of sites are pretty bad on mobile, should we disqualify all sites that are bad on mobile? When I browse HN on mobile I lower my expectations.

Google the article title, then click on the google news link. full article bang!

Or...just archive.is:

http://archive.is/rIBZT

I don't even bother wasting my time to go around a PayWall anymore. Slight annoyance has led me to avoiding and WSJ links unless it's fairly interesting.

Or, do what's fair and pay up if you like the articles..

Is their $12/12 weeks method ~really~ that effective for news aggregation websites such as HN or Reddit? Unless you've been a subscriber to the physical subscription, and enjoy it I see no reason why someone from one of these sites would subscribe.

I would gladly pay $1/week for the WSJ. Reporters and editors have mortgages to pay and families to feed.

The problem is that's a teaser rate. The current rate for 1 year is $277. That's way more than I'm willing to pay for a single newspaper.

Ah yes I would do the same possibly - but Amazon Prime is $99 a year and offers has many more uses. After the 12 weeks I assume it automatically signs you up for a year/monthly subscription and you have to remember to cancel it.

Also someone had already mentioned - they probably run many Ads as well. I just find it hard to justify.

But don't they earn through ads? Like other news websites.

RefControl (use a Google property) and Cookie Controller (deny cookies).

The problem is these tricks aren't 100% reliable.

CTRL+SHIFT+N Opens a new incognito window. Paste. Done.

Nope. Doesn't work on Windows 7 running Chrome, nor I expect on many other system/browser combos.

Or stop posting them to HN?

Seriously, would we tolerate any other subscription required site? Why does WSJ get a pass?

I know this has been done to death, but...

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

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.

Seriously, why do we need in-depth journalism uncovering frauds like Theranos when we can have free blogspam about personal experiences at coding boot camps.

> Why does WSJ get a pass?

At least in this case, the WSJ article looks like it's the primary source for this story:

https://www.google.com/#tbm=nws&q=%22Tom+Malafronte%22

The other hits that come up (right now) are foreign-language articles and/or cite the WSJ.

More broadly, my guess would be the WSJ is tolerated because it often has interesting stories that aren't covered or covered well anywhere else (and we're all fairly adept at avoiding its paywall).

WSJ gets a pass because the content is often high-quality and, as demonstrated above, it's trivially easy to get around the paywall. Were it not trivially easy, it wouldn't get a pass.