Switch to Firefox, go to addons.mozilla.org and install the extension NoScript. Or just go to about:config, search for "javascript.enabled" and turn it to false. Then go to the NYT page. Magic.

Seems like time for you to get a subscription! If you read it that many times, it actually provides value for you.

I've considered it.

Off topic, but I have subscribed to the NY Times. I still have a problem with the newspaper tracking my reading habits, and thus object to having to log in to the paywall. At least I can read the print newspaper without being observed.

They could still fingerprint your browser and easily track you even if you read each public page in a new Incognito session. Combining that data with logs from other sites where you did provide your details and they (or any of the 100 trackers popular sites share visitor data with) will also have your name and details. Unless you're using something like Tor and a clean browser, that battle is already lost.

If you're unhappy with NYT, consider their mainstream-educated-conservative counterpart, WSJ. NYT had a porous paywall for a long time, intentionally. WSJ has always been on lock-down. In both cases, it's a strategy, not do-goodery, but regardless NYT is no bad actor in this area.

> If you're unhappy with NYT, consider their mainstream-educated-conservative counterpart, WSJ.

As if there's a major difference between the two papers. They both hire from exactly the same schools and cocktail parties and there's not much tangible difference between the two papers—maybe slightly different opinion column headlines.

I believe OP meant, "consider [the paywall strategy of] their mainstream-educated-conservative counterpart, WSJ" - not "consider [switching to] ... WSJ" - as he/she continued with a comparison of the hard vs. soft paywall employed by each.

I really wish HN had an option to filter all paywalled links. HN should link to the open internet.

I am not against paywalls in general (I subscribe to The Economist), but HN becomes much less useful if 60% of links on the front page are to content I cannot read. And no, I will not subscribe to 5 or 6 newspapers, that makes no sense at all.

This discussion is being sidetracked into a discussion of morality of paywalls. I am perfectly fine with paywalls, I'd just like an option to not see all the links to content that is inaccessible to me.

I’d rather see them, so I can decide if it might be worth subscribing.

Sure, that's why I wrote "an option".

But I know I won't be subscribing to any mainstream news site other than The Economist, so many of HN's links are non-existent for me.

Just be quick on the "Stop Loading" button. If the JavaScript never loads, neither will the paywall.

Or prepend "outline.com/" to the full URL.

I feel there must be a filter on Hacker News that allows us to hide all content behind paywalls. Or to block content from a certain domain from appearing on our feed. That will stop us from complaining. I don't live in the US and I am not about to subscribe to a US-based newspaper just to read one article per month. Telling us to just subscribe won't work. There are millions of newspapers around the world. We can't subscribe to all of them. Even to 10% of them.

Perhaps consider paying for NYT? I think if you're frequenting the site enough to be getting paywall warnings, then you're probably someone who is interested in their journalism.

Personally, I’d be happy with the free monthly quota they offer. Unfortunately, I get charged for one of those views whenever I load a NYT page even if I didn’t realize that’s where a link would send me.

They (and other similar paywalls) have generated an asset that gets spent automatically by clicking on a normal web link, which has made me be much more self-conscious about every move I make on the web. This materially degrades my experience everywhere on the web. What happened to the idea that a GET request should not have permanent repercussions?

Personally, I'm just there to see what makes the link on HN so interesting. I don't seek out articles on paywalled sites directly. When I stumble into a paywall, I just close the tab and look at other headlines on HN.

Can someone explain to me why paywalled journalistic quality content has become societally unacceptable?

Do you work for free? Do you pirate your software?

There are so many other free outlets of information. But quality journalism (although admittedly not always perfect) has its price.

Pompous boring filler in the house style?[1] Yawn, no thanks. As you say, there are plenty of free outlets of information. What more explanation do you need?

“Quality journalism” has its price, and the market doesn’t want to pay for it.

Quality software has its price too, but the market prefers Linux. Wait, are you associating “free” with “low quality” or am I? Who can tell with quality these days. One thing’s for sure, it’s a difficult issue.

[1] The text equivalent of Charlie Brooker's "How to report the news" segment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHun58mz3vI

I have had a (paper) subscription to this and other quality news papers, but in my experience most of the content is news, opinion, sport / entertainment / culture, or advertisements / infotainment, and only a very small part I would consider to have journalistic depth. I would not mind paying for those articles, and I would even prefer they would extend these articles to a substantial read (say 1/3 the size of an average novel). However, somehow, newspapers keep holding on to the news paper model that exists since the late 19th century.

There's only a paragraph's worth of information in many stories, or there's just a cutesy headline and a momentary desire to find out what the story is about. Here it's 'procrastination is kinda good actually.' Big whoop.

Yes to both of your other questions.

Totally valid point.

Perhaps your questions are more general, but I'll speak for myself.

I don't consider paywalling quality journalistic content socially unacceptable. I consider dropping a link on a free discussion board to a site with a paywall to be beyond obnoxious (but not quite to 'unacceptable.')

I often work for free, but not always. I often pirate software, but not always. I pirate software when I can't get a trial; I've seldom found reason to continue using pirated software and thus don't pay for it. Software with trials (much like paywalled sites with a limited number of free articles each month) let me sample without cost and are indeed more likely to get me to pay.

As I said, I don't seek out paywalled content- I'm not visiting the NYT daily trying to find a way around the paywall so I don't have to pay. I don't subscribe and pay for these things because it's not a part of my life. I get news and opinions and entertainment from other sources, only as sporadically as my curiosity piques, and usually because it's in some public place (TV on in the lobby, newspaper on the security desk, etc.)

Quality journalism does have its price. As does poor quality journalism - they paywall both. But I can't be bothered to throw money at them so that I can learn who actually provides quality content ... because it's not a part of my life, nor do I want it to be. See sibling comments on content quality.

By themselves, paywalls are the very definition of "fair": you offer what you think is a valuable service and would like to be paid for it. That's fair. You're free to ask, I'm free to not read your stuff if I don't want to pay.

What makes linking to paywalls unacceptable is that links are not marked with a "paywall" tag of some sort. So it ends up being bait and switch and a waste of time.

Regarding subscriptions: I'm just not going to separately subscribe to three dozen news sources I regularly read, I'm sorry.

I would gladly pay per article, but unfortunately that is not an option.

I only see it considered unacceptable on Hacker News.

I find that letting search engines index your content and then paywalling it an unfair practice. The linked article, for example, is entirely googlable but not readable (try to google a phrase from the bottom of the article). Let alone it's against Google's policies.

There should be no distinction who's looking, with the only exception being paying vs. non-paying clients.