Ask HN: Why not default to non-paywalled links if they're allowed and desired?
I frequently see news articles shared on HackerNews where in the first reply is a non-paywalled link to the same article. It appears this practice has the implicit support of the community because if it were not desired I would expect moderation to remove the links.
However, I also know that HackerNews prides itself in editing the title and URL of posts as a way of improving content quality.
It is then unclear to me why we're in this middle ground. If the most desirable link is a non-paywalled version, and if that is allowed and supported by this community, then perhaps moderation should be updating URLs to reference non-paywalled versions and we should be submitting non-paywalled versions. If that is morally objectional then I question the widespread support of linking as an initial reply.