Comment by downandout | Hacker News Reader

Comment by downandout | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

are you kidding?

No. The volume of links to this one particular site with a very aggressive paywall has been increasing. Further, HN administrators actually change links pointing to alternative sites over to paywalled WSJ URLs when WSJ has the story (I know, because it happened with a story I submitted).

WSJ has provided you with free content

They're not ad supported?

How about signing up for the WSJ?

I might consider it, if they weren't so obnoxious with the paywall, along with inundating their pages with ads and completely blocking the loading of content when using an ad blocker. I will not reward that type of behavior, and neither should anyone else. I reported them to Google for cloaking a few weeks ago because under certain circumstances, the paywall comes up even when clicking over from Google (so, to your argument that "HN has provided [me] with a workaround" - that isn't always the case because they flagrantly violate Google's anti-cloaking policy under certain circumstances, on top of everything else).

> I might consider it, if they weren't so obnoxious with the paywall

"If they gave me all the content upfront for free without ads, I would then choose pay for it".

You expect us to believe this?

Do you honestly think that I care what you believe? I made a statement. I would consider paying WSJ because of the high quality content if they weren't such abusive people, but because they are, they won't get a dime from me. I also never even mildly suggested that they should have no ads, only that they shouldn't make web browsers grind to a halt with so many ads.

You're trolling, right? This is a parody or something.

> I will not reward that type of behavior

My mind is being blown. I'm completely feeding right now.

So everyone that doesn't share your opinion is trolling? No, I'm not. If you want to pay WSJ for that type of behavior, you're certainly welcome to.

Do not object to the WSJ paywall. I will not allow it. I will not stand for this.

Definitely stay away from the comments on any article specifically about ads/ad blocking/content site monetisation haha. This guy isn't alone.

I just can't tell anymore. Everything I read is so bizarre that I'm convinced it's just people messing with us. I'm probably being too charitable.

As far as I can tell, some people believe everyone elses primary purpose should be to make their life better. The owners, writers, marketers, developers, and other stakeholders in the wsj shouldn't be thinking about providing for themselves, they should be nobly sacrificing their lives so that we have something amusing to read for a minute or so a couple times a week (for free of course).

A few days ago I was talking to a guy in real life about pokemon go and he was both genuinely angry at the developers and also, unironically, called them entitled. I was flabbergasted. Entitled for making something and allowing this guy to use it, but him being genuinely angry at people he'd never met, nor had any dealings with, for not providing enough value was completely reasonable to him.

All I know is that if I ever run a business or accidentally become a celebrity, I'm keeping an army of PR suits between me and the general public. Too many people indignant about too many things to attempt honest public discourse with my real name attached.

You're my new favorite person on HN. I haven't heard anyone word this so well. It's refreshing to hear the voice of reason.

As far as I can tell, some people believe everyone elses primary purpose should be to make their life better.

I made a statement that it might be nice if WSJ gave HN users the same treatment they give to Google users. You've made a radical generalization about someone based upon a single statement on a comment thread.

People that make radical generalizations about others based upon one data point are among the most dangerous in our society. Hitler did this, as do religiously motivated terrorists, racists, etc. Upon what other data points do you make such generalizations? Race? Religion? Sex?

Your posts were definitely stronger than it might be nice if WSJ gave HN users the same treatment they give to Google users.

People that make radical generalizations about others based upon one data point are among the most dangerous in our society.

People that get indignant and demanding about things are some of the most dangerous in society. Dispassionate egoists don't blow themselves up.

I demanded nothing, nor was I indignant. Before you and your ilk saw someone whose opinion you disagreed with and pounced, this was my statement:

Given the sheer volume of WSJ paywall links posted here, combined with the significance of YC, surely someone at YC could call someone at WSJ and get them to bypass the paywall when the referrer is HN.

It was an explanation of a problem and a suggested solution. Nothing more, nothing less.

>Dispassionate egoists don't blow themselves up.

Given your comments above, it's pretty clear that you are far from dispassionate in your hatred of those with whom you disagree.

Sure, just ignore everything else you typed. That seems reasonable.

"Explanation of a problem" even here you're showing of what I've accused you of. You have a problem. HN doesn't seem to have a problem. WSJ doesn't seem to have a problem. But you're phrasing it like it's something objectively wrong. It's not a problem it's your problem.

You don't like something and you want it a different way. That's fine. But adding all of this shit about them being abusive, obnoxious, calling them ridiculous; shows that no, you don't just want something to be a certain way you think that there's a failure on someones part if it isn't.

Now you appear to be trying to what, back peddle in to the part of disinterested bystander? At least own up to your sense of entitlement. It's as defensible of a position as any other.

EDIT:

dispassionate in your hatred of those with whom you disagree.

Hatred is what you're getting from this? Yeah this isn't going anywhere.

The fact that you are saying I have a "sense of entitlement" based upon one data point, again, is the whole problem here.

> this isn't going anywhere.

You're correct, this isn't going anywhere.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com