Why is it that submitting content that requires a Google or Facebook sign in is so frowned upon, but linking to subscriber only content is perfectly acceptable. The most common case of this is The New York Times, as seen in this link that is currently number 10 on the front page.<p>Screenshot: http://i.imgur.com/gxR2Ma6.png<p>Thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6111352
For New York Times articles, I have started to use viewtext. It works everytime and I just get the text<p><a href="http://viewtext.org/api/text?url=<nytimesurl>" rel="nofollow">http://viewtext.org/api/text?url=<nytimesurl></a><p>Edit: How about all New York Times articles get redirected through the viewtext route? Or would that be just too much
Firefox and Chrome have a cookie whitelisting feature. You can let non-whitelisted sites set whatever cookies they want, but have them cleared on browser exit.
This is your question:<p>> <i>Why is it that submitting content that requires a Google or Facebook sign in is so frowned upon</i><p>A New York Times article does not require a sign-in. The article in question is not subscriber only-content. You do not need to sign-in nor be a subscriber to read this article.<p>The NYT allows 10 articles a month to be read for free. So your question should be phrased as: "Why does HN allow links to sites on which I have exceeded the amount of free content that I am personally allocated?"<p>But you don't even need to go that far. You can turn off the JavaScript in your browser, which, for many of FB-login type websites, would not work.