Have people shared this before?

[ImmediateReaction]

Has anyone on here shared articles that were behind paywalls before so poster can read?

I believe I've read numerous comments on mn where chat has included articles 'behind a payroll '. We don't all pay for all articles or subscriptions but share widely.

Is that so?

Not seen a thread deleted for this reason before:

"This thread has been deleted
We are taking this down for now as we believe this article from Haaretz is behind a paywall.
MNHQ"

Ive seen threads deleted for a variety of reasons before, but not for attempting to share an article which allegedly was behind a paywall.

An article that admits Amnesty didn't condemn terrorists enough due to not wanting to show support for Israel. Shocking article which should be shared.

I guess it's just in my imagination then 😂 I'm sure I've read many posts where people have cut and pasted articles that might have been behind a paywall. I'm not even sure the article was.

Maybe you've seen articles that have used a share token? Or perhaps they've been archived on archive.ph and a link to that has been posted?

You’re not being very clear. Is what you’re actually saying is that you think MNHQ deleted a thread for political reasons? Was the article cut and pasted into the body of the thread, or just linked? But, if just linked, was there a share token? Otherwise no one could read it, so there seems little pointing in starting a thread about it…?

Not sure. Thanks for providing a possible reason.

Sorry for being unclear.

I cut and pasted an article from another person that I could read in full. No mention of a share token etc on previous article. Article deleted because MN 'think' it might have been behind payroll, at some point it may have been, I guess.

It was completely readable in the post. Perhaps someone reported as possibly, originally, being behind a paywall. It wasn't when I read it.

I just wondered if we aren't allowed to share articles that may have at some point been behind a paywall. Not in thread rules though.

I think what you mean is, the OP might link to an article and it could be behind a paywall (The Times for eg) but then the OP will provide a share token link.

Sometimes the OP does not provide that link and others will comment 'can't read as it's behind a paywall' and someone else will come along and provide the share token.

Sometimes posters will ask for the article to be summarised if it is not possible to access it from the OP's link and someone else will kindly paraphrase.

So yes - in answer to your question, OP, I have seen threads where the link is behind a paywall but the thread still stands.

I think mumsnet do delete posts that copy and paste articles in full to avoid copyright issues. They don't seem to have a problem with links to articles through archive sites like archive.ph which allow you to access that paywall content for free though
So that is usually how such content is shared.

There are various websites that will remove a paywall for you by taking you to an archived version of the page, so if you've seen paywall articles linked to, it's possible people have done it via those sites.

I'm not even sure it was behind a paywall. MN said they 'thought it was' so are 'investigating '.

Hopefully they will reinstate thread since it confirmed that an organisation as huge as Amnesty purposely didn't condemn Hamas much because they didn't either to show support for Israel.

The PR of hamas and its supporters stopping condemnation of terrorists atrocities is astounding.