It&#x27;s been pointed out to me that I shouldn&#x27;t have said &quot;anyone who doesn&#x27;t get that doesn&#x27;t get HN&quot; because it sounds dismissive. So I&#x27;d word that differently now. The underlying point stands: many of the best articles posted to HN come from these publications. Wiping all that out—which a strong anti-paywall rule would do—would be disastrous to the intellectual curiosity that is core to HN.<p>&gt; <i>they should figure out which of the 18 different workarounds they can use</i><p>Workarounds are a nuisance but this exaggerates it. Overwhelmingly these articles come from a small number of sites that have the same few workarounds. Most people have internalized them long ago (or installed software to do so), and for anyone who hasn&#x27;t, it&#x27;s fine to share info like &quot;open an incognito window&quot; or &quot;google the article title&quot; in the threads. What&#x27;s not fine is to turn every thread into the same old argument about paywalls.<p>&gt; <i>what exactly can you flag</i><p>You should flag things that shouldn&#x27;t be on HN in the first place. But a New Yorker article on, say, Nabokov and butterflies obviously <i>should</i> be on HN. (Obviously, that is, given the mandate and history of the site.) Articles on offbeat topics that lead outside HN&#x27;s core grooves are the most endangered species here. We need more of those. Flagging them is an abuse of flagging. Sometimes people do that because of paywalls, even when the paywall has a trivial workaround like an incognito window. That&#x27;s what I was referring to.<p>Intellectual diversity is the founding value of this site: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;hackernews.html" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;hackernews.html</a>. That&#x27;s what I meant re &quot;getting&quot; HN. But I&#x27;ll try to be more helpful than dismissive when communicating it.