4 ms·

“Discussed” previously: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28784427 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28784427 It no longer works on some sites like nyt -

by u2077 5y ago

“Discussed” previously: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28784427 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28784427 It no longer works on some sites like nyt - The site was offline for a day because of a legal notice.

civilized 5y ago
(If anyone wants to know what works on NYT, try turning off JavaScript only on nytimes.com)
- arcticbull 5y ago
  For folks with an Amex Platinum, consider using the new $240 digital entertainment credit for a free NYT subscription. [1] I got tired of trying to dodge it, and none of the other options were compelling. Plus I'm led to believe democracy dies in darkness. Or is that WaPo? [1] https://global.americanexpress.com/card-benefits/detail/digital-entertainment/platinum https://global.americanexpress.com/card-benefits/detail/digi...
  - rkk3 5y ago
    > For folks with an Amex Platinum, consider using the new $240 digital entertainment credit for a free NYT subscription sounds very not-free.
    - arcticbull 5y ago
      It's included in the annual fee of an Amex Platinum so it is no additional cost if you elect this option. It covers the cost of an NYT subscription completely. This is a new credit, and not one that factors into my cost-benefit analysis on keeping the card. Probably true of most folks. I mention it because I suspect many cardholders are in the same boat and do not know about this. You are correct that it is not "free" but rather "included at no additional charge" should you choose to elect it.
      - rkk3 5y ago
        ah ok, I just meant more not free in the sense that I assume the digital credit is probably already spoken for between; Netflix, Spotify, Disney, Audible, Amazon Prime, etc etc.
        arcticbull 5y ago
        Unless I'm mistaken they only support Peacock, Audible, SiriusXM, and The New York Times! Were it to include the ones you mention, I suspect I'd feel quite differently haha.
  - coolso 5y ago
    > I got tired of trying to dodge it The ad-popup actually mentions that signing up for a free account with them bypasses the restriction, I'm not sure to what degree but I have noticed it works whenever I log in. Furthermore, your AmEx option is not free, and for those who would rather not support an organization like the NYT, is not an option either. For those who don't even want a free account with NYT either, Private Browsing mode in Safari on iOS with AdGuard works every time.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - ThunderSizzle 5y ago
    Does NYT really deserve that money ? Typically I've found their journalism to be subpar and their opinions to be to partisan. At least with Audible, your getting books from a real diversity of authors.
  - smsm42 5y ago
    I'd never pay money for reading NYT (or learning why nobody bothered to turn the lights on for the poor dying democracy), I like the idea per se (actually, Audible sounds as a better option).
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 5y ago
  Or just use a client that does not have a JavaScript engine. From the perspective of this text-only browser user, there is no "paywall" there are just complaints from people who are using browsers that run JavaScript. From where I sit, it looks like JavaScript is the problem, not "paywalls". Specifically, browsers that run it automatically and web developers that use it irresponsibly. It seems the JS interpreter is not in the browser for the user to write and run her own scripts to improve her UX but for website operators to run their own scripts, without any prior selection or approval from users, in order to benefit their own interests. Allow me to explain. A true access control would require an approved source IP, a password or something similar. Thus, this so-called "paywall" is not an access control to exclude non-subscribers. It is more like some sort of deliberate annoyance, forced hassle as a weasel-like form of "marketing". It is implemented using JavaScript. The question to ask is whether NYT could and would carry out the same sort of intentional annoyance without the use of JavaScript. They probably could, yet the fact is they don't. And so we are left to wonder, perhaps they wouldn't, even if they could. JavaScript clearly enables, and seems to me may actually inspire, shenanigans like this "paywall". (Why annoy non-subscribers. "Because we can. It's easy.") Take JavaScript away from web developers and what would happen. Would they reimplement this "paywall" in another way, without using JavaScript. How easy would that be, compared to using JavaScript. What we have now is NYT 1. collecting data on non-subscribers, 2. showing them ads (thus potentially producing revenue from non-subscribers) and 3. annoying non-subscribers (after collecting data on them and showing ads) to try to get them to subscribe. #3 is a new low. Turn off JavaScript and this does not work. Or use a client that does not support JavaScript and one never even knows this is happening to other users. I only know about a NYT "paywall" because I read about it. I have never experienced myself. I can read the entire online edition fast, in one go. Apparently the only reason is because I am not using a browser released by an entity that collects data on users, a browser that runs other peoples' code, more or less indiscriminantly, by default. This leads me to have a different perspective than the users of popular browsers. The popular browsers and JavaScript seem like they are the problem, or at least a fundamental part.
vinni2 5y ago
For nyt a simple trick that always works for me at least on iOS device is to open it in private mode in safari and set the website settings to enable “use reader automatically”. In fact this trick works for many behind paywall but not all like ft.com.
jimpix45 5y ago
For sites that this and other methods don't work on like NYTimes, WSJ, and WaPo, I use Incoggo (https://www.incoggo.com https://www.incoggo.com). I saw them on HN a few weeks ago and haven't really had issues. They're only out on Mac though.
- ian-bateman 5y ago
  Thanks jimpix45! Glad to hear you're enjoying Incoggo :)
- mhsomethingsout 5y ago
  this just looks like an ad to me, you have only one submission and it's incoggo...
1vuio0pswjnm7 5y ago
curl -A "" -HAccept https://12ft.io/api/show-ad?q=https://example.net curl -A "" -HAccept https://12ft.io/api/proxy?q=https://example.net
- mattowen_uk 5y ago
  Care to explain this?
  - 1vuio0pswjnm7 5y ago
    Direct links. No (gratuitous) Javascript needed. Useful, e.g., for users who prefer clients that cannot run Javascript.

by u2077 5y ago

civilized 5y ago

(If anyone wants to know what works on NYT, try turning off JavaScript only on nytimes.com)

arcticbull 5y ago
For folks with an Amex Platinum, consider using the new $240 digital entertainment credit for a free NYT subscription. [1] I got tired of trying to dodge it, and none of the other options were compelling. Plus I'm led to believe democracy dies in darkness. Or is that WaPo? [1] https://global.americanexpress.com/card-benefits/detail/digital-entertainment/platinum https://global.americanexpress.com/card-benefits/detail/digi...
- rkk3 5y ago
  > For folks with an Amex Platinum, consider using the new $240 digital entertainment credit for a free NYT subscription sounds very not-free.
  - arcticbull 5y ago
    It's included in the annual fee of an Amex Platinum so it is no additional cost if you elect this option. It covers the cost of an NYT subscription completely. This is a new credit, and not one that factors into my cost-benefit analysis on keeping the card. Probably true of most folks. I mention it because I suspect many cardholders are in the same boat and do not know about this. You are correct that it is not "free" but rather "included at no additional charge" should you choose to elect it.
    - rkk3 5y ago
      ah ok, I just meant more not free in the sense that I assume the digital credit is probably already spoken for between; Netflix, Spotify, Disney, Audible, Amazon Prime, etc etc.
      - arcticbull 5y ago
        Unless I'm mistaken they only support Peacock, Audible, SiriusXM, and The New York Times! Were it to include the ones you mention, I suspect I'd feel quite differently haha.
- coolso 5y ago
  > I got tired of trying to dodge it The ad-popup actually mentions that signing up for a free account with them bypasses the restriction, I'm not sure to what degree but I have noticed it works whenever I log in. Furthermore, your AmEx option is not free, and for those who would rather not support an organization like the NYT, is not an option either. For those who don't even want a free account with NYT either, Private Browsing mode in Safari on iOS with AdGuard works every time.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- ThunderSizzle 5y ago
  Does NYT really deserve that money ? Typically I've found their journalism to be subpar and their opinions to be to partisan. At least with Audible, your getting books from a real diversity of authors.
- smsm42 5y ago
  I'd never pay money for reading NYT (or learning why nobody bothered to turn the lights on for the poor dying democracy), I like the idea per se (actually, Audible sounds as a better option).
1vuio0pswjnm7 5y ago
Or just use a client that does not have a JavaScript engine. From the perspective of this text-only browser user, there is no "paywall" there are just complaints from people who are using browsers that run JavaScript. From where I sit, it looks like JavaScript is the problem, not "paywalls". Specifically, browsers that run it automatically and web developers that use it irresponsibly. It seems the JS interpreter is not in the browser for the user to write and run her own scripts to improve her UX but for website operators to run their own scripts, without any prior selection or approval from users, in order to benefit their own interests. Allow me to explain. A true access control would require an approved source IP, a password or something similar. Thus, this so-called "paywall" is not an access control to exclude non-subscribers. It is more like some sort of deliberate annoyance, forced hassle as a weasel-like form of "marketing". It is implemented using JavaScript. The question to ask is whether NYT could and would carry out the same sort of intentional annoyance without the use of JavaScript. They probably could, yet the fact is they don't. And so we are left to wonder, perhaps they wouldn't, even if they could. JavaScript clearly enables, and seems to me may actually inspire, shenanigans like this "paywall". (Why annoy non-subscribers. "Because we can. It's easy.") Take JavaScript away from web developers and what would happen. Would they reimplement this "paywall" in another way, without using JavaScript. How easy would that be, compared to using JavaScript. What we have now is NYT 1. collecting data on non-subscribers, 2. showing them ads (thus potentially producing revenue from non-subscribers) and 3. annoying non-subscribers (after collecting data on them and showing ads) to try to get them to subscribe. #3 is a new low. Turn off JavaScript and this does not work. Or use a client that does not support JavaScript and one never even knows this is happening to other users. I only know about a NYT "paywall" because I read about it. I have never experienced myself. I can read the entire online edition fast, in one go. Apparently the only reason is because I am not using a browser released by an entity that collects data on users, a browser that runs other peoples' code, more or less indiscriminantly, by default. This leads me to have a different perspective than the users of popular browsers. The popular browsers and JavaScript seem like they are the problem, or at least a fundamental part.

vinni2 5y ago

For nyt a simple trick that always works for me at least on iOS device is to open it in private mode in safari and set the website settings to enable “use reader automatically”. In fact this trick works for many behind paywall but not all like ft.com.

jimpix45 5y ago

For sites that this and other methods don't work on like NYTimes, WSJ, and WaPo, I use Incoggo (https://www.incoggo.com https://www.incoggo.com). I saw them on HN a few weeks ago and haven't really had issues. They're only out on Mac though.

ian-bateman 5y ago
Thanks jimpix45! Glad to hear you're enjoying Incoggo :)
mhsomethingsout 5y ago
this just looks like an ad to me, you have only one submission and it's incoggo...

1vuio0pswjnm7 5y ago

curl -A "" -HAccept https://12ft.io/api/show-ad?q=https://example.net curl -A "" -HAccept https://12ft.io/api/proxy?q=https://example.net

mattowen_uk 5y ago
Care to explain this?
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 5y ago
  Direct links. No (gratuitous) Javascript needed. Useful, e.g., for users who prefer clients that cannot run Javascript.