I don't disagree with paywalls generally, but I don't think paywalled content should be (intentionally) linked as the main subject on HN or similar unless that is the only good source of information about the matter in hand. It stops us masses actually reading what you have posted for us to read.
If all the non-paywalled sources are lacking detail, then I'd suggest using one of them for the main link and add a "more detail <here> behind the paywall" comment immediately below.
Obnoxious advertising (pop-ups, auto playing audio, ...) is universally bad though and should not be linked to at all if avoidable. I'd prefer a paywalled source to one that uses obnoxious ads/trackers/other.
> I don't think paywalled content should be (intentionally) linked as the main subject on HN or similar unless that is the only good source of information about the matter in hand.
I think a fair expectation is that if you're going to post a link to a paywalled site, you should add a brief summary of the article as a comment. (Kind of like a companion to tl;dr, only in this case, it's te;dr, for "too expensive; didn't read.")
Usually a good paywalled article will at least present an abstract, which should cover the need for a summary.
If it is an absolute paywall (pay or read nothing, no abstract/summary for free) then yes the poster should provide a summary so others can decide if they want to gain access to the rest or not.
If all the non-paywalled sources are lacking detail, then I'd suggest using one of them for the main link and add a "more detail <here> behind the paywall" comment immediately below.
Obnoxious advertising (pop-ups, auto playing audio, ...) is universally bad though and should not be linked to at all if avoidable. I'd prefer a paywalled source to one that uses obnoxious ads/trackers/other.