33 ms·

I would argue that it depends on how it is implemented. Some pay/reg walls are implemented such that the site is sending the full content to you but directing

I would argue that it depends on how it is implemented. Some pay/reg walls are implemented such that the site is sending the full content to you but directing your web browser not to display it (like using a `display: none` CSS property). I would say using a browser extension to direct the browser to display it anyways wouldn't be a violation. You were authorized to make the initial request for the otherwise public page and they choose to send the full content to you. You aren't making any other connections to their system that you aren't authorized to make. On the other hand, if it is doing something to trick the server into sending you content that it wouldn't otherwise send you and you aren't authorized to access, I would tend towards seeing that as something closer to a violation.

nobody9999 5y ago
>I would say using a browser extension to direct the browser to display it anyways wouldn't be a violation. You were authorized to make the initial request for the otherwise public page and they choose to send the full content to you. You aren't making any other connections to their system that you aren't authorized to make. An interesting point. I, as a general rule, disable javascript in my daily driver browser (Firefox). Doing so breaks the paywall on certain sites. I'm not specifically targeting those sites (e.g., with uBlock or noscript), as I've disabled javascript for all sites and don't use any extensions to bypass paywalls. Where the use of javascript is required (and I find that out by visiting the site -- then decide whether I actually want to view/use it) I'll use a different browser altogether (in my case, Vivaldi). I don't believe that disabling javascript is a "hacking" attempt, mostly because I don't do so to bypass anything -- rather, I don't want arbitrary javascript executing on my systems.

nobody9999 5y ago

>I would say using a browser extension to direct the browser to display it anyways wouldn't be a violation. You were authorized to make the initial request for the otherwise public page and they choose to send the full content to you. You aren't making any other connections to their system that you aren't authorized to make. An interesting point. I, as a general rule, disable javascript in my daily driver browser (Firefox). Doing so breaks the paywall on certain sites. I'm not specifically targeting those sites (e.g., with uBlock or noscript), as I've disabled javascript for all sites and don't use any extensions to bypass paywalls. Where the use of javascript is required (and I find that out by visiting the site -- then decide whether I actually want to view/use it) I'll use a different browser altogether (in my case, Vivaldi). I don't believe that disabling javascript is a "hacking" attempt, mostly because I don't do so to bypass anything -- rather, I don't want arbitrary javascript executing on my systems.