3 ms·
Assuming "FB" means Facebook, what if one doesn't have a Facebook account?
by mnw21cam 9y ago
Assuming "FB" means Facebook, what if one doesn't have a Facebook account?
- Deathmax 9y agoOr 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 agoNope - paywall still present.
- karpodiem 9y agoWorked for me, I use Facebook though (may not work if you do not have a Facebook account?)
- icebraining 9y agoWorked for me too, and I don't have an FB account. mnw21cam, maybe you're blocking the Referer?
- thg 9y agoIf 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 agoPresumably 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 agoIf 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.