5 ms·

Does 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

by bilkow 10y ago

Does 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 ago
I believe this was discussed in one of the last threads as being potentially against some dumbass 25 year old law.
- the8472 10y ago
  Not everyone is american
  - melling 10y ago
    I'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 ago
      I 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 ago
        If they lower the price they might not get more subscribers. So they are pricing it to maximize revenue.
        hendersoon 10y ago
        I can't speak to that-- all I can say with certainty is I personally would subscribe at $5/month.
        tracker1 10y ago
        Same here... while I've appreciated the articles I've clicked through to, I do not feel their content is worth over $20/month to me. I pay for netflix, cable, etc, and don't even use it much, I mostly download for convenience, but I pay for it because I feel guilty if I don't. If I click on a google search link, I expect to see the same content google does.. for that matter, it's part of google's own rules... WSJ should not get a pass, and google should now deindex WSJ based on those rules.
  - hnbroseph 10y ago
    do other countries have laws?

by bilkow 10y ago

Does 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 ago

I believe this was discussed in one of the last threads as being potentially against some dumbass 25 year old law.

the8472 10y ago
Not everyone is american
- melling 10y ago
  I'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 ago
    I 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 ago
      If they lower the price they might not get more subscribers. So they are pricing it to maximize revenue.
      - hendersoon 10y ago
        I can't speak to that-- all I can say with certainty is I personally would subscribe at $5/month.
        tracker1 10y ago
        Same here... while I've appreciated the articles I've clicked through to, I do not feel their content is worth over $20/month to me. I pay for netflix, cable, etc, and don't even use it much, I mostly download for convenience, but I pay for it because I feel guilty if I don't. If I click on a google search link, I expect to see the same content google does.. for that matter, it's part of google's own rules... WSJ should not get a pass, and google should now deindex WSJ based on those rules.
- hnbroseph 10y ago
  do other countries have laws?