Using "disenfranchised" in this case with made up statistics of 20% and 80% is rather odd.
There are _plenty_ of discussions to participate in here. WSJ make up maybe 1-2 articles on the front page per day? Can someone explain why this matters enough to even consider a banning of content?
For those who don't want to see it: upvote other things!
I'd much rather see a surge in voting non-mainstream media content then for HN to enforce banning. Come on people, we can be better!
[[As a personal aside, I typically don't upvote and rarely read discussions about mainstream press (WSJ, NY times, WashPost,Economist) here. ]]
>>There are _plenty_ of discussions to participate in here. WSJ make up maybe 1-2 articles on the front page per day? Can someone explain why this matters enough to even consider a banning of content?
1-2 articles on the front page per day is a lot.
To answer your main question though, while I think banning wsj.com would be heavy-handed, I'd be in favor of penalizing the domain so its articles are less likely to reach the front page and stay on it for so long.
I think the reason people are having issue with it is that the topics themselves tend to be interesting, but without access to the article, participating in the discussion becomes difficult. This can be rather frustrating for people.
I know this first-hand because the incognito "trick" used to work for me, but no longer does for some reason. So I find myself effectively blocked out of the conversations.
At least make links to paywalled stories identifiable via text/colour, or allow logged in users to not even let them appear on the page on the first place. Otherwise you're simply frustrating users unnecessarily.
Nobody is saying that journalists shouldn't be compensated for their work.
The discussion, as Dan pointed out, is about whether articles behind paywalls, that can no longer be penetrated using the usual tricks, hacks and incantations have any place on the site if they can't be read by the majority of the community.
Oh and this:
>"deal with it"
Really? Please contain your unwarranted indignation.
There are _plenty_ of discussions to participate in here. WSJ make up maybe 1-2 articles on the front page per day? Can someone explain why this matters enough to even consider a banning of content?
For those who don't want to see it: upvote other things!
I'd much rather see a surge in voting non-mainstream media content then for HN to enforce banning. Come on people, we can be better!
[[As a personal aside, I typically don't upvote and rarely read discussions about mainstream press (WSJ, NY times, WashPost,Economist) here. ]]