5 ms·

How do you read the article?

Rumperuu 8y ago
Add the following to your bookmarks and click it when you come across a paywall: javascript:window.location=%22https://m.facebook.com/l.php?u=%22+encodeURIComponent(window.location.href);
- NicoJuicy 8y ago
  This doesn't always work ( i use it with my social bookmarking application. You need incognito mode mostly as well)
mparlane 8y ago
Take the viewable title of the article: "A $10 Accessory Proves Smartphones Are Too Big" Paste it in to google, and click the first link that takes you back to that website. Due to google's requirements of the search bot seeing what normal people can see when coming from google, they have to honor this...
- sleavey 8y ago
  This doesn't always work for me. When it doesn't, I open a private window and try again, since some sites set a cookie, but even then it sometimes doesn't work.
- foxhop 8y ago
  click image search. A picture is worth 1,000 pay-walled words.
- eMSF 8y ago
  Google stopped requiring that a while back.
Klathmon 8y ago
I really don't mean to be snarky here, but you could pay to read it? A lot of people on HN dislike advertising, but content creators are going to need to get paid if they want to create good content, and paying for it seems like a great alternative to advertising. WSJ is having a deal right now where you can get the subscription for $1 for 2 months, which IMO is more than reasonable.
- paultopia 8y ago
  and then how much does it cost after the 2 months? and how hard is it to unsubscribe? and how many people subscribe to read a couple of articles then forget about it and end up paying hundreds of dollars in money drained away in drips and drabs in recurring credit card charges? I like journalism, but it would be really nice to have a better model (I'd even go with pay per article). Subscriptions that you may or may not use have always been a dark pattern, whether it's for journalism or apps or gym memberships.
  - bwb 8y ago
    It is SUPER hard to unsubscribe, they make you call and jump through hoops.
  - Klathmon 8y ago
    I'm 100% with you, and I also really would love something better, but I think there are a lot of little issues that still need to be solved (like how micropayments still don't seem to be workable with current credit card systems), and some trust that needs to be built up. I honestly don't know how it all works with WSJ, but I figured I'd just point out the deal they are having.
- geggam 8y ago
  The model where information is published is going to have to change. Until it does those who are stuck in the old economic model will suffer. The concept that you can contain information and retain some value in the distribution of it is obsolete and asking people to pretend that model will still work is silly.
- DennisP 8y ago
  I would, if I could make a micropayment for an individual article. In an environment where everyone consumes just a few articles each from a very large number of sources, it's not reasonable to expect a monthly subscription to a particular source just for the sake of reading one article. I do pay for an online subscription to one newspaper, but I'm not willing to go back to the days of reading only one newspaper. I might put up with a reasonable amount of advertising, if it didn't track me around the web, attack me with malware, double my bandwidth usage and run scripts that bog down my computer.
smacktoward 8y ago
Or you could always, you know, subscribe to the WSJ. The way HN reacts to paywalls is beyond ridiculous. It's like if every comment thread on a story about a Netflix original series was nothing but questions and answers about where to go to torrent it.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- autumnaterr 8y ago
  I agree with paying for journalism BUT think about just how important is this particular piece is. Edit: the last 'is' added.
  - grzm 8y ago
    Another perspective is if it isn't that important, there's little need to read it, much less going out of one's way to bypass a paywall.
    - autumnaterr 8y ago
      You mean cure FOMO? :D
    - Dylan16807 8y ago
      This is a fine thought by itself. As long as you don't imply that anyone doing an unimportant action is behaving incorrectly. In other words, someone that says "I don't care much but I looked anyway" is not a hypocrite.
      - rising-sky 8y ago
        "I have no interest but I showed interest" Strikes me odd, and should likely be confusing to an observer. It seems an oxymoron which is somewhat analogous to hypocrisy
        8y ago
nyolfen 8y ago
bypass paywalls extension ffx https://github.com/iamadamdev/bypass-paywalls-firefox https://github.com/iamadamdev/bypass-paywalls-firefox chrome https://github.com/iamadamdev/bypass-paywalls-chrome https://github.com/iamadamdev/bypass-paywalls-chrome
tjbiddle 8y ago
WSJ doesn't paywall users coming from Google. Just search for the title and click the outbound link.
dtech 8y ago
google the article headline
logicallee 8y ago
For the WSJ, add the word "full" before wsj in the domain name. You end up on the WSJ site and they use this for an additional viral factor, so Facebook users can see and share the full article. I'm not sure if you have to have a Facebook account - I think you don't.

Add the following to your bookmarks and click it when you come across a paywall: javascript:window.location=%22https://m.facebook.com/l.php?u=%22+encodeURIComponent(window.location.href);

NicoJuicy 8y ago
This doesn't always work ( i use it with my social bookmarking application. You need incognito mode mostly as well)

mparlane 8y ago

Take the viewable title of the article: "A $10 Accessory Proves Smartphones Are Too Big" Paste it in to google, and click the first link that takes you back to that website. Due to google's requirements of the search bot seeing what normal people can see when coming from google, they have to honor this...

sleavey 8y ago
This doesn't always work for me. When it doesn't, I open a private window and try again, since some sites set a cookie, but even then it sometimes doesn't work.
foxhop 8y ago
click image search. A picture is worth 1,000 pay-walled words.
eMSF 8y ago
Google stopped requiring that a while back.

Klathmon 8y ago

I really don't mean to be snarky here, but you could pay to read it? A lot of people on HN dislike advertising, but content creators are going to need to get paid if they want to create good content, and paying for it seems like a great alternative to advertising. WSJ is having a deal right now where you can get the subscription for $1 for 2 months, which IMO is more than reasonable.

paultopia 8y ago
and then how much does it cost after the 2 months? and how hard is it to unsubscribe? and how many people subscribe to read a couple of articles then forget about it and end up paying hundreds of dollars in money drained away in drips and drabs in recurring credit card charges? I like journalism, but it would be really nice to have a better model (I'd even go with pay per article). Subscriptions that you may or may not use have always been a dark pattern, whether it's for journalism or apps or gym memberships.
- bwb 8y ago
  It is SUPER hard to unsubscribe, they make you call and jump through hoops.
- Klathmon 8y ago
  I'm 100% with you, and I also really would love something better, but I think there are a lot of little issues that still need to be solved (like how micropayments still don't seem to be workable with current credit card systems), and some trust that needs to be built up. I honestly don't know how it all works with WSJ, but I figured I'd just point out the deal they are having.
geggam 8y ago
The model where information is published is going to have to change. Until it does those who are stuck in the old economic model will suffer. The concept that you can contain information and retain some value in the distribution of it is obsolete and asking people to pretend that model will still work is silly.
DennisP 8y ago
I would, if I could make a micropayment for an individual article. In an environment where everyone consumes just a few articles each from a very large number of sources, it's not reasonable to expect a monthly subscription to a particular source just for the sake of reading one article. I do pay for an online subscription to one newspaper, but I'm not willing to go back to the days of reading only one newspaper. I might put up with a reasonable amount of advertising, if it didn't track me around the web, attack me with malware, double my bandwidth usage and run scripts that bog down my computer.

smacktoward 8y ago

Or you could always, you know, subscribe to the WSJ. The way HN reacts to paywalls is beyond ridiculous. It's like if every comment thread on a story about a Netflix original series was nothing but questions and answers about where to go to torrent it.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
autumnaterr 8y ago
I agree with paying for journalism BUT think about just how important is this particular piece is. Edit: the last 'is' added.
- grzm 8y ago
  Another perspective is if it isn't that important, there's little need to read it, much less going out of one's way to bypass a paywall.
  - autumnaterr 8y ago
    You mean cure FOMO? :D
  - Dylan16807 8y ago
    This is a fine thought by itself. As long as you don't imply that anyone doing an unimportant action is behaving incorrectly. In other words, someone that says "I don't care much but I looked anyway" is not a hypocrite.
    - rising-sky 8y ago
      "I have no interest but I showed interest" Strikes me odd, and should likely be confusing to an observer. It seems an oxymoron which is somewhat analogous to hypocrisy
      - 8y ago

nyolfen 8y ago

bypass paywalls extension ffx https://github.com/iamadamdev/bypass-paywalls-firefox https://github.com/iamadamdev/bypass-paywalls-firefox chrome https://github.com/iamadamdev/bypass-paywalls-chrome https://github.com/iamadamdev/bypass-paywalls-chrome

tjbiddle 8y ago

WSJ doesn't paywall users coming from Google. Just search for the title and click the outbound link.

dtech 8y ago

google the article headline

logicallee 8y ago

For the WSJ, add the word "full" before wsj in the domain name. You end up on the WSJ site and they use this for an additional viral factor, so Facebook users can see and share the full article. I'm not sure if you have to have a Facebook account - I think you don't.