I do not like wasting two clicks on articles that sound interesting but I cannot read because they are behind a paywall.
What do my fellow HN users think? Should they be autoflagged or marked as paywalled?
Should contributors post a summary that they have themselves written, and add the link elsewhere in their post for those interested? I do think that a smidgen of extra effort would be valued greatly by all.
I know there is HN guidance on this, and I have previously and regretfully posted paywalled articles, but keen on seeing is anyone has any new or better ideas.
Most of the time there's an archive.is link in the comments
I don't like it either.
Manually marking would be error-prone.
I'd prefer a bot to spare readers the current labour of adding the archive.is copy (where available).
I fully support your opinion.
We should fork an open source browser and anytime a page bait and switches (providing anything but the article) the browser automatically loads the archive page instead.
I’d switch to that browser instantly.