From (2): &gt; We all hate paywalls, but an HN without NYT, WSJ, The Economist, The New Yorker etc. would obviously suck so much worse that anyone who doesn&#x27;t get that doesn&#x27;t get HN.<p>This statement is up for debate. I don&#x27;t get why you continue to declare this like it is settled. Paywalls <i>do</i> limit access to content, no matter how easy or numerous the workarounds. In my opinion, the site suffers when paywalled links are posted. I don&#x27;t think it&#x27;s a just-so story that NYT&#x2F;Economist&#x2F;WSJ links are <i>so</i> important to HN that we simply must suffer their existence.<p>Declaring discussion of paywalls thoughtcrime is not good for the community. Suggesting people who can flag should not flag because they should figure out which of the 18 different workarounds they can use to read content is also not appropriate.<p>&gt; Just so it&#x27;s clear: this is a sure way to lose your flagging privileges on HN<p>Wow. So flagging an article that you can&#x27;t read (by design), is a way to lose the ability to flag. What exactly are you supposed to flag, then? If you can&#x27;t flag &quot;this page just asks me for a credit card&quot;, then what exactly can you flag?