Why hard paywalls is not blocked on Lemmy?

Because it is the original data source which can be used to find non paywall archives using tools such as https://archive.ph/
I think it's always good practice to link the original source.
- Also nyt paywall can be easily bypassed with a ublock filter list
  
  This is called a "velvet rope paywall". The idea is to keep the content open to indexing while strongly encouraging human readers to cough up. It's a decent idea IMO, as are (easily subverted) metered paywalls.
- Why not block both as orginal links?
  No paywalls or Archive links.
  
  If you block data sources because you fear misinformation, then you also can't discuss the misinformation/propaganda you disprove of. If you don't allow that information to be posted, it is still being read by many many people that now have less chances of being informed about it being misinformation.
  I don't think limiting information is ever a good solution
  Also, I agree with your reply on beehaw.
  You can post third party source that discuess the orginal article and that way you can gurantee accessibility and almost full info.
  https://infosec.pub/comment/14276780

The ad-supported internet is awful, and paywalls are sort of the only sane alternative. It’s how news has worked for centuries and we need to go back.
- we need to go back
  Right...
  me secretly committing "piracy" by bypassing the paywall
  AwkwardMonkey.jpg
  _(Paying _for _news, _thats _written _by _a _corporation? _In _this _economy?)

Because journalism costs money, and journalists have bills to pay. If you don't want to pay money for news, some billionaire will happily pay it for you: https://youtu.be/_fHfgU8oMSo
- Thank you. It really bothers me that there are so many people who expect journalism to fall from trees, or even that they're somehow owed it.
  The situation for the last 20 years - the internet free-for-all with plunging ad revenues and spotty quality - is a historic anomaly. Before that it was normal to pay for journalism, and masses of people did. Seems we're slowly moving back to that model and it's not a moment too soon.
  That said, there have always been free sources of non-billionaire-controlled news in the form of state broadcasters like PBS, BBC, CBC. In mainland Europe there are several that publish in English, including DW, France24, Der Spiegel. They have their biases, of course, but they employ professional journalists who take their jobs seriously. And there are more and more nonprofit publishers too: ProPublica and The Guardian spring to mind but there are a ton of specialist outlets too, financed by readers or philanthropic foundations.
  
  To be fair, state controlled (or state financed) media has its own set of problems, depending on the country and historic period, and things can change fast with certain governments.
- We're not in the mid-twentieth century. Journalism hasn't been a thing for decades.
- Why is that the problem of online discussion spaces? News sites can paywall their content, but that doesn't mean anyone else has to allow paywalled links.
  
  It doesn't. Doesn't mean anyone has to allow anything besides fox news either.
  Just pointing out that journalism costs money and certain stories are very expensive to research and cover. As many things in life, you get what you pay for.
- Are you suggesting that Propublica and The Guardian for example to have a hard paywalls?
  Paywalls literally exist to support billionaires and their media empires.
  
  Paywalls literally exist to support billionaires and their media empires.
  Seriously? You may want to consider widening your news source, maybe.

FYI: Firefox has several plugins that can bypass paywalls. I haven't encountered a link that hasn't worked with the one I got ("Bypass Paywalls Clean").
- But they are not accessible to smart phone users.
  
  That's not true. I am using BPC on Fennec, Android.
  
  I only use the plugin on the mobile version.

That's up to the specific community on that specific instance.
- I had never seen a single community that apply that. There might be a one that I did not notice, but otherwise there is not a single community that has any rules about this.
  
  I've definitely encountered it. I think it was in an ADHD community. I linked an unpaywalled article, plus the paywalled journal article that the first article was based on, and they asked me to remove the paywalled journal link.

Lemmy is not a monolith, quite the opposite in fact.
- Lemmy is a community of communities, and is all the better for it.

That's a decision to be made by mods for their own communities.

I prefer not to link to those, but I still think it's important to link to the original source. Sometimes they're the first to post about it and there's not much way around it (until someone posts a link to an archive version that bypass the paywall, or someone provides an NYT gifted link, etc). So it's either that or we lose the potential for discussion.
There's a community for gifted link articles to NYT right there: !nyt_gift_articles@sopuli.xyz

Many of the articles from those platforms are useless noise, but I do still occasionally want to read something that's posted. When that happens, I just F12 and bypass the paywall, or look for the comment that has the article text, from someone else who has already done that.
- or go to archive.ph and check to see if they have the de-paywalled version

Which bring me to this: Why does no one thought about blocking hard paywalled articles for the sake of quality of discussion?
Why block (aka, censor) a link?
People are free to subscribe if they want to, they at least get a link to the source.
People can often find workarounds if they can't/refuse to pay but they would still need the link to know what exact ref they should search for.

A paywall for journalism is just as legitimate as a paywall for any other kind of product or service that costs money to produce.
Suggested compromise: keep the original link (this helps the publisher) and include a relevant excerpt from the paywalled article - not the whole article, but enough to allow an informed discussion on it. Encourage readers to subscribe if they can afford it. Most publishers will be happy with that.
- Sure but we don't link to paywalled services do we.

Each community has it's own rules.
Many of us have access to pay walled media, so why block it for everyone?
- Because for 99% of the users it's useless inaccessible spam.
- Reverse the question, many of us don't have access to pay walled media, so why post it?
  
  As it's been pointed out several times in this thread, there are ways around that.
  
  Not posting pay walled content Ignore it for everyone, even people having access to it
  Posting it people without access can still follow the discussion, and some are quite important news

nothing at all is universally "blocked on Lemmy", different instances + communities set rules that apply there, that is kinda the point of it all...
If you think this is a good idea for a specific community, ask its moderators to create and enforce a rule for this, or create a community of your own where you can set any rules you like.

I don't want moderators to have that power. I do think that users should be able to block posts that link to domains.
filteReddit, a component of Reddit Enhancement Suite, had domain blocks. I'm eagerly awaiting an equivalent to disenshittify Lemmy of paywalled bullshit.

As far as I know there aren't great moderator tools to automate anything like a pay wall ban, so most mods won't bother inspecting every post.
Lots of people like to bypass pay walls, because fuck em.
Most people aren't reading the articles anyway.

Agreed. Mods should be straight up removing posts from people who post pay walled links. I might go as far as to say they should even be banned. Absolute zero tolerance with this bullshit.
Exit: judging from the comments it appears people like paywalled content? Rip.
- It isn't that people like paywalled content, it is that people don't like blanket rules for a decentralized system like the fediverse.
  
  Banning anyone who posts inaccessible shit isn't a blanket rule, it's mere common sense.
  If it's inaccessible it's spam, and spam is intolerable by definition.
  
  It would be up to mods of different communities to implement those rules. I rather have some common sense rules vs. a free for all where Lemmy is full of paywalled content, trolls, and AI garbage. Are you saying you'd like Lemmy to be trash?

Pay walls are like ads. They are paid for by the rich and the stupid. Just archive.is it. Or use the browser extension that bypasses pay walls. Or read the summary provided by my bot !news_summary@hilariouschaos.com
- I see your opinion, I’m curious to hear how you think about the media’s role in society. Journalists work at newspapers and they need to pay rent. A stance “paywalls are paid for by the rich and the stupid” kinda means that one doesn’t want to pay journalists.
  I am genuinely curious about your perspective on this. Would you prefer a world without newspapers? Or is it more of a question of money? When I was younger, I didn’t have the money to pay for newspapers. Nowadays, I’m happy to pay for newspapers that interest me.
  
  As I said the rich and the stupid. If ur rich and u pay then it doesn't effect u so why wouldn't you.
  I send $1 a year to independent journalist that i support (most of em are on yt so that's more than they would ever get from me as ad revenue). The rest of the news comes from large news orgs owned by a few rich and powerful assholes who use it as a personal mouthpiece.
  I will read their propaganda but I refuse to pay for that privilege. I also believe that gate keeping knowledge in a way that will disproportionately effects the poor is a recipe to ensure the poor stay stupid and thus stay poor.
  I would argue the maga supporters with IQs of house bricks still seek knowledge just that they have never been exposed to enough of it to realise they are not been fed knowledge but propaganda. By making real news have a pay wall it makes the fake news easyer to find and consume. I fundamentally believe all people are equal just that some have more opportunity than others. A pay wall simply puts a roadblock in the path of opportunity for the poor and stupid.
- That's what I've been doing for a while, but I've been seeing more pages getting wise to it, and not letting me in after blocking JavaScript.
  
  Nytimes got wise to that but archive still works.