I sometimes wonder how many new subscribers NYT and WSJ got from HN. There are quite a few posts linking to them. They're quite expensive for semi-casual readers unfortunately.

A digital subscription to either of them is $1 a week. I think that's actually pretty reasonable.

For WSJ $1 a week is only an introductory offer, good for only 2 months. Beyond that it's $19.50 a year.[1]

The $1 a week for nytimes is also a promotional rate. It's normally $3.75 a week.[2]

[1] https://store.wsj.com/shop

[2] https://www.nytimes.com/subscription

You mean $19.50 a month, not a year.

Sorry yes, that's correct. Thanks.

But how come they are usually upvoted so much to end up in the top 10?

Becaues NYT and WSJ are the still the top names in news, and most people who want to be informed have some form of subscription to them.

Bluntly, because most HN users upvote and downvote based on title and personal agenda, and don't even try to read the article.

At best, they'll jump into the comments, leave a tangental opinion, and upvote and downvote accordingly.

For anyone on Firefox:

https://github.com/iamadamdev/bypass-paywalls-firefox

Am I the only one who would feel wrong using this? WSJ deserves our money looking at quality of the articles.

We’re helping them fix their business model

Can you elaborate? What's wrong with their business model?

That it is circumventable using an existing hole they have to patch

Now there is incentive

How are you fixing it? You're just silently going around it.

Giving incentive to patch an existing circumvention of their own UI