4 ms·

Original WSJ article: "Twelve Days in Xinjiang: How China’s Surveillance State Overwhelms Daily Life" https://www.wsj.com/articles/twelve-days-in-xinjiang-how-

Original WSJ article: "Twelve Days in Xinjiang: How China’s Surveillance State Overwhelms Daily Life" https://www.wsj.com/articles/twelve-days-in-xinjiang-how-chinas-surveillance-state-overwhelms-daily-life-1513700355 https://www.wsj.com/articles/twelve-days-in-xinjiang-how-chi... If you don't have WSJ subscription, paste the title into FB's search bar, and open the link via search results to bypass the paywall.

dang 9y ago
Thanks, we've changed the url to that from http://www.wsj.com/video/life-inside-chinas-total-surveillance-state/CE86DA19-D55D-4F12-AC6A-3B2A573492CF.html?mod=trending_now_video_1 http://www.wsj.com/video/life-inside-chinas-total-surveillan.... It's generally better to post a link to the host article. WSJ is an edge case, but paywalls with workarounds are ok (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html) and users almost always usually post workarounds in the thread.
mnw21cam 9y ago
Assuming "FB" means Facebook, what if one doesn't have a Facebook account?
- Deathmax 9y ago
  Or manually use FB's redirect: https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https://www.wsj.com/articles/twelve-days-in-xinjiang-how-chinas-surveillance-state-overwhelms-daily-life-1513700355 https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https://www.wsj.com/articles/...
  - mnw21cam 9y ago
    Nope - paywall still present.
    - karpodiem 9y ago
      Worked for me, I use Facebook though (may not work if you do not have a Facebook account?)
      - icebraining 9y ago
        Worked for me too, and I don't have an FB account. mnw21cam, maybe you're blocking the Referer?
- thg 9y ago
  If you're browsing with Firefox, the "Bypass Paywalls" Add-on is really neat. No further workarounds necessary. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/bypasspaywalls/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/bypasspaywall...
  - vixen99 9y ago
    Presumably publications like the WSJ know about these bypasses and tolerate them unlike the The UK Daily Telegraph which doesn't for its 'premium' articles. However how is using them on a regular basis not fraudulent?
    - thg 9y ago
      If I were a regular WSJ reader, I'd subscribe, but I'm only reading the occasional WSJ article that's linked here on HN. Having the Add-On bypass it is more convenient than using the FB redirect snipplet and that's about it. If the WSJ doesn't want any non-subscribers to read their articles, then it's on them not to provide exceptions (FB referrer). For me, it boils down to reading between 1-3 WSJ articles a month by bypassing the paywall or reading none at all if they don't allow me to, since I don't consider the consumption worth the price (which includes handing over data to a US corporation) I'd have to pay. That money is better spent on a local news outlet that provides me with news I consider more relevant to myself.
AnonymousPlanet 9y ago
What is even the point of posting a paywalled article to a forum like this? Anyone who puts content behind a login does not wish it to be linked in an open forum. Period. If the WSJ wants their articles shared and discussed, they should build and maintain their own HN behind that paywall and keep it there. Your suggestion of going via FB makes things even worse. Now there are two walls involved in keeping others out. Or am supposed to keep a plethora of logins at hand just to participate in an open community?

dang 9y ago

Thanks, we've changed the url to that from http://www.wsj.com/video/life-inside-chinas-total-surveillance-state/CE86DA19-D55D-4F12-AC6A-3B2A573492CF.html?mod=trending_now_video_1 http://www.wsj.com/video/life-inside-chinas-total-surveillan.... It's generally better to post a link to the host article. WSJ is an edge case, but paywalls with workarounds are ok (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html) and users almost always usually post workarounds in the thread.

mnw21cam 9y ago

Assuming "FB" means Facebook, what if one doesn't have a Facebook account?

Deathmax 9y ago
Or manually use FB's redirect: https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https://www.wsj.com/articles/twelve-days-in-xinjiang-how-chinas-surveillance-state-overwhelms-daily-life-1513700355 https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https://www.wsj.com/articles/...
- mnw21cam 9y ago
  Nope - paywall still present.
  - karpodiem 9y ago
    Worked for me, I use Facebook though (may not work if you do not have a Facebook account?)
    - icebraining 9y ago
      Worked for me too, and I don't have an FB account. mnw21cam, maybe you're blocking the Referer?
thg 9y ago
If you're browsing with Firefox, the "Bypass Paywalls" Add-on is really neat. No further workarounds necessary. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/bypasspaywalls/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/bypasspaywall...
- vixen99 9y ago
  Presumably publications like the WSJ know about these bypasses and tolerate them unlike the The UK Daily Telegraph which doesn't for its 'premium' articles. However how is using them on a regular basis not fraudulent?
  - thg 9y ago
    If I were a regular WSJ reader, I'd subscribe, but I'm only reading the occasional WSJ article that's linked here on HN. Having the Add-On bypass it is more convenient than using the FB redirect snipplet and that's about it. If the WSJ doesn't want any non-subscribers to read their articles, then it's on them not to provide exceptions (FB referrer). For me, it boils down to reading between 1-3 WSJ articles a month by bypassing the paywall or reading none at all if they don't allow me to, since I don't consider the consumption worth the price (which includes handing over data to a US corporation) I'd have to pay. That money is better spent on a local news outlet that provides me with news I consider more relevant to myself.

AnonymousPlanet 9y ago

What is even the point of posting a paywalled article to a forum like this? Anyone who puts content behind a login does not wish it to be linked in an open forum. Period. If the WSJ wants their articles shared and discussed, they should build and maintain their own HN behind that paywall and keep it there. Your suggestion of going via FB makes things even worse. Now there are two walls involved in keeping others out. Or am supposed to keep a plethora of logins at hand just to participate in an open community?