
Ask HN: Please ban links to e-commerce checkout pages and paywalled articles - grandalf
HN does not feature advertisements on the home page, and it should not feature paywalled links, as they are essentially just ads for content that is blocked unless the user pays.<p>Similarly, HN should not allow links that automatically add an item to a user&#x27;s e-commerce cart and then direct the user to the checkout page.<p>If not an outright ban, both of these types of links should be flagged to prevent inadvertent clicking.
======
dang
Obviously checkout links aren't valid submissions here, and you should flag
them so we can kill them and perhaps ban the sites.

Paywalled articles are different. That's a settled matter on HN. The rule is
that paywalled articles are ok when there's a workaround:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10178989](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10178989)

Yes, the paywalls suck, but it would suck worse to deprive HN of the better
NYT, WSJ, Economist, New Yorker, etc., articles.

------
chrisseaton
I disagree. Do you think discussing a book online is wrong if people have to
pay to buy the book?

~~~
grandalf
That's fine if it's a blog post about the book containing some excerpts and
some analysis, but that's quite different from a link that simply leads to a
form to fill out one's credit card info!

~~~
chrisseaton
For a lot of people the comments on HN are the equivalent of the excerpts and
the analysis - it's a place to discuss the article. Yeah you can't take part
if you haven't read the article, like you can't take part in a discussion of a
book you refuse to buy.

~~~
grandalf
That's a good point, however considering that there are many thousands of
books one might choose to read, by your logic the HN front page ought to be
filled with "add to cart" links for those books on Amazon. Frankly even Amazon
lets you read a few pages of a book and reviews before deciding whether to
purchase.

I think the more important question is whether the HN home page should be
directly supporting revenue generation efforts by media orgs. They contrive
article titles to be clickbait, only to load a paywall when the user clicks
with absolutely no context, no preview, etc.

This is about HN taking a stand against being used simply as a revenue
generation "channel" by media orgs. I'd be hard pressed to find a more
intelligent, wealthy, and influential demographic than HN readers. News orgs
have realized this and they actively promote stories on HN to drive revenue.

~~~
chrisseaton
> This is about HN taking a stand

My personal opinion, probably shared by others, is that I'm not really
interested in HN 'taking a stand' about anything. The website is fine just
doing its job without any aspirations to change the world.

My advice would be to vote with your feet by not up-voting or visiting stories
that you don't like. If other people feel the same way they'll die away. I
would guess most people don't feel the same way, so they probably won't.

~~~
grandalf
PG has written about the folly of paywalls, so it could simply be a stand
against that. HN should not be a place where marketers go to get their
clickbait stories viral "clicks" and "impressions".

~~~
chrisseaton
I'd rather HN was the kind of place that didn't take a stand against anything.
It's a community utility and it would be a shame if it was abused to make
points for issues which to be honest I think are at the student-politics level
of petty things to be worked up about.

I'm not being facetious when I say if you don't like them don't post them or
read them. Please don't try and stop me reading or posting them just because
you don't like them.

Of course if the HN people themselves have a strong opinion on it they're
entitled to do what they want with the site, but as the admins have said, they
don't have that strong opinion.

~~~
grandalf
> I'd rather HN was the kind of place that didn't take a stand against
> anything.

So would I. But it takes a stand against political discussion and against
changing bad titles in submissions, so I think taking one against paywalls
would at least be a beneficial stand to take.

~~~
chrisseaton
Ok, well nice debating with you but I don't think we'll agree on this topic so
I won't keep bothering you.

~~~
grandalf
No worries, I don't feel all that strongly about it, I do think it would be
helpful to use the power of HN to encourage the NYT and others to offer free
access to stories linked directly from HN.

------
gus_massa
> _Similarly, HN should not allow links that automatically add an item to a
> user 's e-commerce cart and then direct the user to the checkout page._

I didn't notice them. Do you have 2 or 3 recent examples?

------
aml183
So articles from the WSJ and NYT should be banned?

~~~
grandalf
Getting a link on the HN home page results in hundreds of thousands of clicks
from highly intelligent, successful people, many of whom are influential and
wealthy.

The WSJ and NYT should remove the paywall for all links originating on HN.

In the meantime, yes, they should be banned.

~~~
ajeet_dhaliwal
They can't identify users from HN like me who are not highly intelligent,
successful, influential or wealthy though.

Another problem is some people don't hit these paywalls because they do not
frequent these sites, it's usually based on number of articles read per
period, so it's frustrating for some and others have no idea there even is a
pay wall.

The biggest problem is won't it limit the discussions that can be had?

~~~
grandalf
> others have no idea there even is a pay wall.

True.

> won't it limit the discussions that can be had?

Perhaps, but if it were someone creating Amazon links to books that
automatically added the book to cart and redirected the user to checkout, I
think we'd accurately see the paywall link spam for what it is. I don't think
there is really anything that is covered by paywall sites that doesn't have
solid coverage in AP stories or other general interest, non-paywalled
publications.

