> Are paywalls ok?
> It's ok to post stories from sites with paywalls that have workarounds.
> the archive link has the exact same content as the link submitted
No, articles are updated as new information comes in, retractions are made, etc. Especially breaking news (the type that would reach the top of HN). The archived versions are outdated.
> others randomly got a login request
It's not random, you get a number of free articles before the paywall appears ("soft" paywall).
The paywall is removed entirely for some topics/stories, especially matters of public health (common during the pandemic).
> the only reason the archive site has the content is that it didn't get the login screen
No, it's because they don't block archive crawlers, and prefer people bypassing the paywall and reading news at NYT. Hopefully users find the content valuable, and some of them subscribe as a result.
(opinions are my own)
If the story was linking directly to the "book, TV show, movie, video game, album, comic book, etc", and the link only worked for some people while others randomly got a login request or similar, you'd also see the top comment being a link to an archived version which avoids the login screen. That is: the main difference is that the archive link has the exact same content as the link submitted in the story, only bypassing the login screen that some people see. And the only reason the archive site has the content is that it didn't get the login screen; if everyone always got the login screen, what you would see on the archive site would be the same login screen.