3 ms·
I feel a little sad that pay-walled articles make it to the top of HN. I'm sure the article is interesting, but a lot of us can't actually read it.
by orangepenguin 9y ago
I feel a little sad that pay-walled articles make it to the top of HN. I'm sure the article is interesting, but a lot of us can't actually read it.
- mattbeckman 9y agoHere's a bookmarklet I use sometimes: javascript:window.location.href='https://m.facebook.com/l.php?u='+encodeURIComponent(window.location.href);
- orangepenguin 9y agoThat looks pretty handy. I'm at work (maybe I shouldn't be on HN at all, haha...) and Facebook is blocked. But I guess that's my problem. :) I'll check it out when I get home.
- jakenberg 9y agoDude... you are a g
- derwiki 9y agoReal LPT in the comments!
- Sohcahtoa82 9y agoThis isn't reddit. Keep that meme-y crap out of here.
- dstaten 9y agonot working for me, unfortunately
- PMan74 9y agoWhy does that even work? I get technically what is going on - WSJ see the link as having been referred from Facebook. But why does the WSJ display the content for free to somebody that seems to be coming from Facebook yet look for a subscription for direct access (or from a Google search result referral) .
- sillysaurus3 9y agoThere's a workaround: submit the article to archive.is. http://archive.is/d8LTZ http://archive.is/d8LTZ I didn't come up with this trick, but unfortunately I forgot who donated it.
- KGIII 9y agoMaybe me. ;-) I've been suggesting it for a while. It works wonders and has worked every time I've tried it. It seems likely that they know about this backdoor and have opted to allow it. They must surely know the IO addresses associated with archive.is and have yet to make any effort to block then.