Can't we just look this up somewhere else instead of encouraging this bullshit paywall behavior? Or is the quality of information that different?
I honestly don't know, but I think in news, time is a factor.
Use this post as a test: what non-paywall link would you submit?
Not sure how they differ since non-paywall wsj link does not work for me (still has paywall in 2 different browsers).
By posting urls to good articles that are behind pay-walls, you do provide a place to discuss the information, etc., and everyone can still learn. That is assuming at least some of us can read it.
I pay for the wsj. Why wouldn't I pay for good research, good writing, knowledge, etc.? People need to earn a living.
The WSJ is the last remaining quality paper. They increase their prices every year, but I still pay for it. I highly recommend that you do too.
Personally I'm against submitting paywall links to HN because it makes it harder for everyone to read, but I have no problem (either overall morally or or a personal level) with content like the WSJ being behind a paywall.
[1] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/refcontrol/