It doesn't seem to provide nearly as much information. Not everyone's business model is to give self-entitled individuals free stuff.
By posting urls to good articles that are behind pay-walls, you do provide a place to discuss the information, etc., and everyone can still learn. That is assuming at least some of us can read it.
I pay for the wsj. Why wouldn't I pay for good research, good writing, knowledge, etc.? People need to earn a living.
The quality is night and day. The BBC has unfortunately lost the plot in recent months (go to their homepage and see how many stories are headlined with quotations), and every other free source needs to pander to the clicks-for-advertisers market, so stories are rushed, content is emotional, and quantity is prized over quality.
The WSJ is the last remaining quality paper. They increase their prices every year, but I still pay for it. I highly recommend that you do too.
There may be a big overlap, but "tech-savvy" and "think all information should be free" are not synonymous.
Personally I'm against submitting paywall links to HN because it makes it harder for everyone to read, but I have no problem (either overall morally or or a personal level) with content like the WSJ being behind a paywall.
Can't we just look this up somewhere else instead of encouraging this bullshit paywall behavior? Or is the quality of information that different?