I disagree. Some information is worth paying for. If it was voted up, others agreed. You are always free to avoid it. How will we get high quality investigative content if none of us wants to pay for it?
I will agree with you, and amend my position to coincide with zeynel1.
It isn't that paywalls are bad -- good content should be paid for. I just don't think it makes sense to submit a link to a site when only a subset of that site's users can see it. Ruins the fun...
NYTimes has selective access to a lot of the front page stories, visiting nytimes.com not logged in won't normally allow you to advance past the little blurbs to see full articles (connection, location, time of day, visitor amount dependent). You'll notice however Google searching the article title and then choosing the first result will take you to the full article.
Far more annoying, to me, is comments on articles complaining that they're behind a paywall (especially when it's actually a registration wall). So, while I understand that it may be frustrating to some people, please don't post comments complaining that an article is behind a paywall.
