> If you're often running in to the WSJ paywall that means their content is often good,
Doesn't follow. It does mean its often get linked in places that I read, but that doesn't mean its good.
> Their competitors, who you're not running in to very often
That was never stated and is an unreasonable assumption.
Just because one isn't running into competitors paywalls (because other sources often don't have such a thing) doesn't mean one is not running into the competitors far more often than the WSJ.
I'm assuming there is a filtering function occurring at HN which means that high quality sources are being linked to more often than low quality sources. I think that's a reasonable assumption, and is why WSJ is getting linked to a lot here.
It's also pretty reasonable to believe that they make more money from subscriptions than they would from advertising, and that they're more likely to be able to afford to produce high quality articles with more money than with less.
Doesn't follow. It does mean its often get linked in places that I read, but that doesn't mean its good.
> Their competitors, who you're not running in to very often
That was never stated and is an unreasonable assumption.
Just because one isn't running into competitors paywalls (because other sources often don't have such a thing) doesn't mean one is not running into the competitors far more often than the WSJ.