The source should always be linked when possible. I pay for multiple sites that have paywalls, and so do thousands or millions of other people, depending on the site. If you don't, there are...
Exemplary
The source should always be linked when possible. I pay for multiple sites that have paywalls, and so do thousands or millions of other people, depending on the site. If you don't, there are generally a lot of options for circumventing the paywall (as I mentioned, adding "outline.com/" in front of the url is easy and tends to work), but we shouldn't link to blogspam instead of the actual source.
I also pay for sites but the sites I pay for are not the same sites others here are paying for. I am not about to pay a monthly subscription to read one post here which makes paywall links useless...
I also pay for sites but the sites I pay for are not the same sites others here are paying for. I am not about to pay a monthly subscription to read one post here which makes paywall links useless when posted in a public forum. It only encourages people to comment/vote without reading the article. Of the 5 people who upvoted this post I doubt any of them actually read the post and just saw a catchy headline.
Free access article from Ars Technica
Agree with @trippysnail, paywalled anything should be hard banned, how can you discuss what you can't see?
The source should always be linked when possible. I pay for multiple sites that have paywalls, and so do thousands or millions of other people, depending on the site. If you don't, there are generally a lot of options for circumventing the paywall (as I mentioned, adding "outline.com/" in front of the url is easy and tends to work), but we shouldn't link to blogspam instead of the actual source.
I also pay for sites but the sites I pay for are not the same sites others here are paying for. I am not about to pay a monthly subscription to read one post here which makes paywall links useless when posted in a public forum. It only encourages people to comment/vote without reading the article. Of the 5 people who upvoted this post I doubt any of them actually read the post and just saw a catchy headline.
This would be a great situation for being able to add multiple articles to the same topic
That's a cool idea that would help against the different article same story duplicate posts that can happen.
Perhaps the outline.com version should be the link then?
This article is paywalled and a free account does not permit a user to view it. I don't like the idea of seeing paywalled articles.
You can just add "outline.com/" in front of the url, it gets past almost all paywalls. This is WSJ's story and they should be linked to as the source.