The problem is sharing it to a group of people who mostly aren't paying for it. It's a good way to get a thread that's just people reacting to the title, which drives HN toward just being a discussion board instead of a place to find good content.

I would pay if its token based pay per read model. nobody want to subscribe to 10 news websites paying hundreds every month.

Nothing wrong with paying for serious news, but when most viewers can't read the article it probably won't get much useful discussion.

Most news articles are not worth paying for. From leaving out details to serving an agenda; a lot of news has lost it's credibility. WSJ is a good example. It had really great long articles backed by real research before it was bought by Murdock.

1. Can’t be bothered

2. Never going to visit this site again and I am not going to make an account for it

I am however, okay with turning off the ad blocking if they’re running reasonable ads (not every other paragraph).

Agree with the 2 siblings: the problem is HN readers at large unable to read it, hence no useful discussion.

I'd also add: from paid online news, I also expect a moderated forum/comment section, with a human to escalate to if automatic/AI moderation fails.

Should everyone pay for every news source?

People who participate in forums share their insights for free and resent the friction that a paywall adds to information being diffused.