Re:Algorithms are changing what we read online
by zepearl on Monday September 14, 2020 @06:49PM
(#24476030)
I personally never read articles of FT nor WSJ - I don't even try to "click" on those links/references as I know that I won't be able to read them => I'll never have any chance to "understand" if I would like to subscribe to those newspapers :(
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Algorithms are changing what we read online
by searchableguy on Tuesday September 15, 2020 @05:41AM
(#24479439)
There are some free ones. Try their wirecard reporting. I find it pretty interesting.
Wirecard and me: Dan McCrum on exposing a criminal enterprise: https://www.ft.com/content/745e34a1-0ca7-432c-b062-950c20e41...
Re:Algorithms are changing what we read online
by zepearl on Wednesday September 16, 2020 @03:02PM
(#24496183)
Thank you - but the ones that a freely available aren't marked in the headlines (e.g. "free"), or am I overlooking something?
Re:Algorithms are changing what we read online
by samizdis on Tuesday September 15, 2020 @05:59AM
(#24479528)
Quite a few FT articles are free to read, and many others paywalled on the site are often syndicated to other, non-paywalled sites. A DDG search on the headline will often return such results. (I try, when submitting an FT article, to find a syndicated version as well and to post a link to it in comments immediately after submitting.)
Alternatively, and depending on your views about copyright etc, you can submit the article's url to archive.is - which will either return anything already "archived", or try to fetch it for you.
Re:Algorithms are changing what we read online
by zepearl on Wednesday September 16, 2020 @03:15PM
(#24496332)
Thanks :) I didn't know "archive.is" => interesting/nice!
Still, I think that in the case of well-known newspapers I probably won't try to work around their policies (difficult to explain the reason as I'm not sure myself about the "why" - maybe a mix of ethics and other stuff specific to newspapers).