No, it means that I found the story on Google which, being Google, likes to wrap its digital tentacles around the WSJ’s own URL for its own story, such wrappage for all intents and purposes turning it into a Google URL enabling Google to snoop around and “learn” more about you and your interests should you click on such a link. Not that anyone notices or cares, as they blissfully click on the link anyway, a type of link Google calls “AMP” the official marketing name being Accelerated Mobile Publishing as if Google is doing us all a favor speeding up the web for us but in reality just means Google didn’t like what Apple was doing with Apple News, Apple’s version of wrapping its respective digital tentacles around an independent news outlet’s story URL so it can respectively hitch a ride with the poor schmuck who blissfully clicks on it unaware of what’s going on, or Facebook’s similar mechanisms for snooping and privacy invasion spun as improving the user experience.
I rather object to these digital tentacles wrapping themselves around news story URLs so I fetch my trusty digital machete and hack away, restoring the URL to its original unadulterated state and make it a practice to share story links on TMC that way (a losing battle, like fighting city hall, as I’m probably the only TMC user who practices such internet hygiene, but it’s how I roll).
The WSJ story URL I shared had been duly cleansed of AMP tentacles, but the consequence of that is that the WSJ, to which I owe no subscription dues, nor allegiance, nor claim any fondness, activates its paywall, blocking any visitor who has not parted with, as you say, their cold hard cash, to read such an article. In this case, it is my opinion they are doing the world a favor, but it’s worth Tesla investors knowing about the existence and timing of the article because it is influential (and infuriating) FUD published by the most prominent news outlet in the financial world.