You’re going to have to name this fallacy you keep talking about because so far you’re not making sense.
Sometimes a paywalled source is the first to report on something. Calling that link a bad link is nonsense.
One man’s bad link is another man’s good link. It’s nonsense to prescribe for everyone one definition of “bad”. What’s bad weather? Rain? I love rain. Stop trying to speak for everyone and impose your idea of “bad” on people.
Many people don’t know all the websites to redirect things through without that, so calling their contribution “bad” just because they posted that link isn’t the greatest.
So because someone might not know their link is bad, it ceases to be bad? Nonsense.
It’s not even like it’s that big an issue, because usually someone else comes along that provides an alt link in the replies,
(emphasis mine) Usually that does not happen.
so saying that this is a social failure is also ridiculous, because both were provided between two people.
This based on the false premise that usually bad links are supplemented by an alternate from someone else.
Also, the notion that you or anyone else is socially filtering non-misinformation news sources from the rest of us, because you don’t see the value in it, or cannot figure out how to bypass the paywall yourself, isn’t all that great either.
(emphasis mine) Every user can define an enshitified site how they want. If you like paywalls, why not have your user-side config give you a personalized favorable presentation of such links?