7 ms·
If anyone's looking for another workaround, the article actually hints at the solution: Facebook's l.php redirect that it uses when you click on a link shared t
by ctrl_freak 10y ago
If anyone's looking for another workaround, the article actually hints at the solution: Facebook's l.php redirect that it uses when you click on a link shared through the platform. It functions similarly to the Google redirect, and you don't even need a Facebook account for it to work.
E.g. https://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=https://www.wsj.com/articles/daniel-tarullo-federal-reserve-regulatory-point-man-resigning-1486751401 https://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=https://www.wsj.com/article...
- ikeboy 10y agoI would give you HN gold if it existed (now we just need a bookmarklet/extension to automate this). Do we know that this will still work on Monday? Maybe this will also be closed and you'll need a special link?
- wfunction 10y agoBookmarklet for Facebook: javascript:window.location="https://m.facebook.com/l.php?u="+encodeURIComponent(window.location.href); Bookmarklet for Google: javascript:window.location="https://www.google.com/url?rct=j&url="+encodeURIComponent(window.location.href);
- dankohn1 10y agoThis is awesome. Just for folks who aren't clear how to create a bookmarklet: Create a bookmark of any page, by going to a URL such as https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB122878081364889613 https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB122878081364889613 (note that only the top part of the page loads) and enter Cmd (or Ctrl) D. Now Save the bookmark to your bookmark bar. Find the bookmark, right click, and replace the WSJ URL with the javascript URL in the parent post. Save and now test by clicking the bookmark in the bookmark bar. After a redirect through Facebook, the full WSJ article should display.
- sfritz 10y agoI may be misunderstanding your instructions, but I think the intended use (in Chrome, at least) is to highlight the javascript and drag it to your bookmarks bar. This creates a bookmark that executes the javascript, which you can click to unblock the WSJ article you're currently viewing by redirecting the current page through Facebook. Another useful bookmarklet for deleting annoying DOM elements: javascript:(function(){document.styleSheets[0].addRule(".highlighted_to_remove","background:red !important");var e=function(e){if(e.keyCode==27){i()}};document.addEventListener("keydown",e);var t=function(e){e.stopPropagation();this.classList.add("highlighted_to_remove");return false};var n=function(e){e.stopPropagation();this.classList.remove("highlighted_to_remove");return false};var r=function(e){this.parentNode.removeChild(this);i();e.preventDefault();e.stopPropagation();return false};var i=function(){var i=0;var s=document;while(s=document.body.getElementsByTagName("*").item(i++)){s.removeEventListener("mouseover",t);s.removeEventListener("mouseout",n);s.removeEventListener("click",r);s.classList.remove("highlighted_to_remove")}document.removeEventListener("keydown",e)};var s=0;var o=document;while(o=document.body.getElementsByTagName("*").item(s++)){o.addEventListener("mouseover",t);o.addEventListener("mouseout",n);o.addEventListener("click",r)}})()
- greglindahl 10y agoSame thing for firefox. And you can right-click the bookmarklet to edit its properties and make a nice name.
- haaen 10y agoHow does this work, step by step?
- monochromatic 10y agoBeautiful.
- oconnore 10y agoInstead of buying internet points for someone who figured out a little hack to access journalism, maybe you could instead pay for journalism?
- Taek 10y agoA noble thought. My problem comes not from the fact that I don't want to pay but rather from the fact that it's super annoying. What if my browser could just say "article will be 25 cents?" and I could say y/n? But instead, I have to sign up for a service, hand over my credit card, blah blah, and now you've wasted enough of my time that it was worth just me stealing it. I'm pretty convinced it's just aUX thing.
- sethhochberg 10y agoSee, I look at this the exact opposite way - if I have to decide whether each individual article is worth paying for, I'm probably not going to read any articles. Its much easier for me to pay $10 a month and know that I can, with zero friction, read whatever article I want from the publications I respect. We're talking about the Wall Street Journal here; odds that they're going to only occasionally publish something I'm interested in are pretty low - I'm either interested in subscribing or I'm not.
- leereeves 10y agoFor me, subscriptions are a deal breaker. Whenever possible, I avoid signing up for a recurring fee for something I only use occasionally.
- cgriswald 10y agoFor me, the deal breaker is that even with a subscription I am usually saddled with consuming the content the way they want me to and they only want me to consume it that way so they can still advertise to me.
- 10y ago
- 7yagi 10y agoIt's working right now
- azag0 10y agoHow come this isn't culturally perceived in the same way as not paying for software or movies or music? I've read various reasons why people don't want to pay. That's fine. But then simply don't read it.
- rhaps0dy 10y ago> How come this isn't culturally perceived in the same way as not paying for software or movies or music? Perhaps it is? I've almost never had anyone remark that I was doing something bad when not paying for a software or movie or music.
- stop_thief 10y agoWell it is bad. You're basically a thief, no matter how you try to justify it to yourself. Really, you should be ashamed, rather than nonchalantly unconcerned about your behaviour.
- Fifer82 10y agoYou have to care to be ashamed.
- monochromatic 10y agoTheft != copyright infringement.
- stop_thief 10y agoAh, that tired old linguistic argument that completely misses the point.
- contras1970 10y agoif copyright infringement is theft, then theft is surely murder?
- Retr0spectrum 10y agoThe only downside with this is that facebook gets a small amount of data about your browsing habbits.
- wslh 10y agoYou can create a fake account.
- bitexploder 10y agoIt still helps them if it all aggregates under one account.
- mynameisvlad 10y agoThen create a fake account every week. On a fresh VPN/Tor connection so it's not tied to your IP. Better use a different browser too so it's not fingerprinted [0]. Make sure you disable those sharing links and the JS that loads them in. Let's be real, they get data about you in a million ways. It'll all be aggregated somehow, and I wouldn't be surprised if they did aggregate in other ways like IP/browser, and those sharing links definitely leave cookies behind. [0]: https://panopticlick.eff.org/ https://panopticlick.eff.org/
- Neliquat 10y agoJust to read an article from wsj? No thanks.
- LeifCarrotson 10y agoIt's the same data that Google was getting. Also, I think Facebook (and Twitter, and others) already have a Share button on all WSJ articles that would inform them when you visit that page.
- davedx 10y agoAh, the WSJ, hotbed of climate change denial. I don't click through to any of their articles anyway. I wish them well with their stupid paywall
- bilkow 10y agoDoes it work by checking the referrer? Maybe you can workaround by configuring a browser add-on (like RefControl) to just send facebook.com as a referrer while on WSJ.
- Jgrubb 10y agoI believe this was discussed in one of the last threads as being potentially against some dumbass 25 year old law.
- the8472 10y agoNot everyone is american
- melling 10y agoI've paid for the WSJ for over 15 years. There's nothing wrong with actually paying for good content. That business model doesn't need to go away.
- hendersoon 10y agoI completely agree. The real problem is pricing. The difference between absolutely free like most content on the internet and the WSJ standard monthly rate of $33/month is truly enormous. The NYT, which I also feel is priced too high, is $15/month. Remember Netflix costs $10/month-- that's the value proposition they need to compete against. These content producers should charge $5/month, with no scummy "special introductory offers" where you just _know_ they're going to raise the price and screw you in a couple months. At that price I would subscribe to everything I read.
- cobookman 10y agoIf they lower the price they might not get more subscribers. So they are pricing it to maximize revenue.