Basically, if all I can read is a headline how can I consider it informative? A news headline has as much evidence as your average Tweet, and can be deeply incorrect through the use of clickbait.
I do use methods to get around paywalls, but knowing that some/most people won’t, it seems counter-informative to solely use the clickbait headline to keep people informed.
It’s really not hard to get around them, and paywalls differ geographically.
Using archive / bypass links as the post links make things worse: they allow shitty tabloid headlines to carry the same weight as those from legitimate sources by obfuscating the source. As most people only read the headline, it should be obvious why that’s worse.
I hadn’t considered the second part, but couldn’t bundling the source with the bypass solve that issue?
Being that news communities are there to facilitate discussion, it seems counterproductive to keep people from viewing the article in question. If someone just wanted to read the headlines and not have any discussion, an RSS feed would probably be better.
I always prefer the archive link in the post body. That way you have the benefit of it if you need it, and the source for the headline is prominently displayed close by.
With the archive link posted in the body, that’s not really a paywall anymore. I do appreciate you doing that though!
I tend to get most of my news from https://ground.news these days.