On: Target removes CEO in wake of cyber attack

[j-b]

The link appears to be behind a pay-wall.

[ghshephard → j-b]

As always with WSJ, take 3 seconds and type the title into Google to bypass the pay-wall.

[josefresco → ghshephard]

Alternatives:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/05/us-target-ceo-idUS...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2014/05/05/target-c...

Both tested (unscientifically) as pay wall free.

[daphneokeefe → ghshephard]

I'd really rather not be raising their page read metrics.

[ghshephard → daphneokeefe]

Because all information should be totally free? Newspapers, Television Shows, Movies, Music, Software, Books, Comics, Magazines, etc... Nobody should ever charge money for content, and they must be punished if they attempt to do so?

[daphneokeefe → ghshephard]

I'm not the one advocating "stealing" by defeating the paywall here! I'm suggesting NOT trying to gain unauthorized access. As is usually the case, there are plenty of alternate sources for this information, which derives largely from a press release.

[snsr → daphneokeefe]

> I'm suggesting NOT trying to gain unauthorized access

In what way is accessing WSJ via Google's search results unauthorized?

[dredmorbius → snsr]

It's annoying, it disrupts the discussion on HN (there are several top-level threads discussing the paywall and accessibility of the content, dang has edited the URL to a freely available link).

I'm aware that the news industry has its revenue challenges (and just wrote a fairly lengthy comment on some of those issues: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7692730). But at the same time, if a particular news organization makes the determination that it's not going to provide its content generally, then general discussion sites are just as free to decide that they're not going to link back and refer to the site.

I'd argue that the vast decline in the already shaky standard of WSJ's reportage since being acquired by the Murdoch Disinformation Empire doesn't do much to favor it either.

[DanBC → snsr]

What does WSJ's AUP/TOS say?

[middus → DanBC]

Don't know. Are they behind a paywall?

[DanBC → middus]

No. They put them in front of the paywall so people can read and agree to them before subscribing.

They call them "subscriber terms of use", but the TOS claims to cover people who are not subscribed.

I mention TOS and AUP because it seems some US courts will see this as what makes access authorised or not.

[benburton → ghshephard]

No, but there are equally good free alternatives. I wanted to read about this so I came to the comments, found a link to the USA Today article, and read that instead.

[bdavisx → ghshephard]

I don't think that information should be linked to from HN if there are alternatives. I completely agree w/ you on the idea of paying for superior quality content (I have no opinion on if WSF qualifies for that label though).

[keithpeter → ghshephard]

I'm not being lazy, just respectful of the pay wall. WSJ made a commercial decision to add a pay wall, but because of the way Google search works, they must expose content to Google to have discoverability by search, hence the 'cache' backdoor.

I'd rather people linked to content that was not behind pay walls. The USA Today article linked in another post contains additional reporting.