3 ms·
The ones I'm thinking of (eg. NYTimes, WaPo, WSJ, etc) are all username/password. What kind of paywall are you thinking of?
by __d 8y ago
The ones I'm thinking of (eg. NYTimes, WaPo, WSJ, etc) are all username/password.
What kind of paywall are you thinking of?
- cipherzero 8y agoHow do you think this add on was working? do you think it was brute forcing the password of all the sites you were thinking of?
- __d 8y agoI'm less concerned with the implementation than I am with the principle. In principle, I have reservations about exposing content to search engines but then requiring payment to read it. Especially if it's non-trivial to filter out the sources that require payment. But a plugin which works around an attempt to restrict visibility of content to those who've paid for it ... I thnk the intent here is wrong. I think it's ok to have information that's only accessible to a restricted set of viewers. It's not that it's not possible. It's not that the implementations aren't dumb. It's that the principle of "if I want it, and I can do it, then it's ok" doesn't really hold up, IMO.
- realusername 8y agoThey just bypass the paywalls by pretending they are google, there's no username or password involved.