9 ms·
Google blocked my Chrome extension so I created a website to host it
- jayass 4y agoI had an extension on web chrome store to remove paywall, now google don't let me updated it. So I create a website to host the extension.
- 2Gkashmiri 4y agoplease bring a firefox version.
- swills 4y agoDespite the name, https://github.com/iamadamdev/bypass-paywalls-chrome https://github.com/iamadamdev/bypass-paywalls-chrome supports both Chrome and Firefox.
- thrdbndndn 4y agoSince the Firefox installation is an .xpi file, I assume it's also blocked by Mozilla? Not saying I'm surprised, though, giving the nature of the extension.
- swills 4y agoNot sure, perhaps the author of that one just hasn't tried to get it approved. There's also https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/bypass-paywalls-clean/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/bypass-paywal... and a number of other ones for Firefox that don't look to be blocked, so I don't think Mozilla is taking the same stance.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- 2Gkashmiri 4y agoi use that........ on firefox ever since it first came out
- jayass 4y agoIt should actually work with firefox by using TamperMonkey extension. I'll update the instruction on how to make it work on Firefox
- kevincox 4y agoYou should be able to just load the script file in a userscript manager for firefox. According to the original link the URL for the script is https://raw.githubusercontent.com/jorgefsilva/beatthatwall/main/main.tampermonkey.js https://raw.githubusercontent.com/jorgefsilva/beatthatwall/m....
- kierenj 4y agoAre there any security implications to enabling developer mode?
- djbusby 4y agoWell, you'd have to really trust the code you're loading.
- jayass 4y agoWell, yes and no. By enabling the developer mode you can install any extension that was not verified by the google web store policy. As long you are careful with the extension you install manually you should be fine.
- ThunderSizzle 4y agoIs there necessarily any more danger than installing a random exe from the internet on a typical Windows admin account with UAC turned off? e.g. from https://windirstat.net/download.html https://windirstat.net/download.html
- paulhodge 4y agoFor just flipping the switch, no I don't think there's any implication. For installing an unpacked extension: - Obviously you don't have the benefit of the Chrome store checking for abuse. - You'll need to read the manifest.json file yourself to see what permissions you're granting, because the warning popup doesn't show up when installing this way. - There's a few attacks that unpacked extensions can do because they can spoof their extension ID, and Chrome doesn't consider it a bug. See: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1301966 https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=130196...
- somehnacct3757 4y agoYou will bypass the permission auth dialog, which is your last official chance to see what the code you're about to execute has access to. The extension developer could add a malicious permission + new code to exploit it and it would look the same as using developer mode to add a Hello World extension
- dewey 4y agoAny reason to use that one that only seems to list "Medium" as supported vs the often linked https://12ft.io https://12ft.io (Unsure if official or inofficial extension: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/12ft/nmccamaemgaapokidgbgackjeedocejl https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/12ft/nmccamaemgaap...)? Edit: Unfortunately https://12ft.io https://12ft.io seems to be down right now, I hope it's temporary.
- jayass 4y agoThe fact that only list medium does not mean that do not work on another sites. It should work on most sites but was mainly tested on medium.
- jayass 4y agoIf you the previous extension that was blocked https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/beat-that-wall/fhphepfnaabaceejoamolgciibjobefg https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/beat-that-wall/fhp... you can see that it has way more downloads than https://12ft.io https://12ft.io
- thrdbndndn 4y agoI don't think it's temporary, if what the reviews say is to believe it has been dead for a while and has questionable practice to begin with.
- jayass 4y agoThey suffer from the same problem. They can't update the extension because google changed the policies. Now any attempt to remove paywalls is not allowed
- dewey 4y agoI don't think that extension was an official one, it was not linked from the website so the reviews / download count don't really say much. https://web.archive.org/web/20220824175226/https://12ft.io/ https://web.archive.org/web/20220824175226/https://12ft.io/
- hnbad 4y agoJust a recommendation: the site calls itself "Extensions Hub" despite the domain being "extensionhub.site". This is confusing and makes the site less trustworthy. Additionally "extensionhub.site" doesn't sound super trustworthy to me to begin with (maybe because the TLD is rare and "extensionhub" sounds a lot bigger than how it presents itself). If the idea is to host other extensions on it as well, I'd suggest putting a little more effort into it so it feels like something that actually has extensions on it rather than blog posts. The page for the extension itself for example has none of the usual links or info about the author of the extension (the date and author feel like they're part of a blog post ABOUT the extension, not info about the extension itself because of the layout) and the actual link for the extension itself is a direct download link in the prose of the article itself. This may be because I'm European but the complete lack of info about who operates the site (no privacy policy, just a twitter link and a copyright statement linking back to the site itself) screams "scam" to me on top of the impression that this is a blog trying to present itself as an extension store. Please take this as constructive feedback but if I saw this site in the wild I'd assume it's malware.
- jayass 4y agoHi thanks for your feedback. The idea was to lunch quick and cheap, that's way I choose a .site TLD. If this grow enough in the next few months I will change some things including the TLD. Adding privacy policy is the next step. Again thanks for your constructive feedback.
- the_absurdist 4y agoGreat name, TLD has zero impact from my perspective. I wouldn't fret about packaging - leave that to those who buy overpriced lattes because of the branding.
- mensetmanusman 4y agoIf paywall and ad-blocks were used 100%, I wonder if news would move behind app interfaces 100%. Would definitely be an interesting transition.
- turtleman1338 4y agoWill it be possible for other developers to add their own extensions? The sites name suggests this.
- jayass 4y agoYes, the idea is host more extensions. I could use some help with that
- xhkkffbf 4y agoLet me just say -- and I'll get voted down for this -- that I think breaching paywalls is generally immoral. While I can imagine some moral reasons, I think most people are doing it even though they can pay. They are taking someone's work and using it without permission while refusing to pay. Of course I may be biased because I make some of my living creating content behind paywalls. If free access and ad support were possible, I would choose them first. But they aren't. To me, this extension and the people who support it aren't any different from those who go into restaurants, order food, eat it and then leave without paying. And there will be those who trot out some extreme rhetoric about world hunger or something to justify their actions. Google is blocking this extension because it's bad for the web as a whole. Don't empower people who destroy the information sources and turn the web into a fact desert. Support those who create knowledge and share it fairly and equally, albeit at a price.
- vorpalhex 4y agoThe issue with paywalls is the bait and switch - you push the whole content for SEO then force users to pay money. Nobody cares if you want to sell the secrets of the universe for $5000/mo. We care about the bait and switch. By setting up this bait and switch, you hurt your own paywall - if the search engine can get a full copy, so can I. Want these extensions to stop working? Stop the bait and switch.
- jayass 4y agoCouldn't agree more
- geysersam 4y agoWhy is that relevant? They've created their content - if they want to share it with a search engine that's none of your business. The technology does not allow them to do this without sharing it with you as well. But that is ethically irrelevant. (Of course, we also deserve a good search engine allowing us to remove paywalled sites and seo spam from our results.)
- 4y ago
- Dwedit 4y ago"Bypass Paywalls Clean" seems to work very well on Firefox.
- Nowado 4y agoI'm going through another round of google reviewing my extension right now and it does suck, but I can't imagine deciding that getting people to enable developer mode, manually download and load my extension (every time there's an update, too) is the more likely path to adoption.
- jayass 4y agoTamperMonkey extension helps with that. It allows automatic updates
- MichaelCollins 4y agoIsn't Manifest v3 going to break TamperMonkey/etc?
- kevincox 4y agoIf you call the script main.user.js instead of main.tampermonkey.js tampermonkey and other userscript tools will pick up the script automatically instead of needing to paste the URL in. For example I put my userscripts at https://userscripts.kevincox.ca https://userscripts.kevincox.ca and just clicking any of them should offer to install if you have a userscript extension set up.
- jayass 4y agoYou like this idea can you upvoted in the product hunt: https://www.producthunt.com/products/extension-hub/reviews/new https://www.producthunt.com/products/extension-hub/reviews/n...
- dylan604 4y agoEGAD! Has the internet matured enough so that what was old is new again? Dedicated websites that are independent of a centralised controlling body? What a brilliant idea! Those ol' greybeards were on to something
- nomel 4y agoI've had several YouTube ads telling me I should use a "hybrid" approach to self host some of my services, on hardware in my building, to keep cost down. I had to check a calendar to see what year it was!
- dylan604 4y agoMy first webserver was the most frankenputer I have used to date. I had a friend that was at one of the large colo companies in town. He had a bunch of computer parts that he cobbled together with no case. They were hanging on the wall so that the mobo was flat against a dry erase wall, the PSU was on the desk with cables up to the hanging mobo, the HDD was velcroed to the dry erase wall next to the mobo. Talking about keeping costs down.
- jonas21 4y agoIf I'm reading this correctly, the extension sends every URL you use it on to some random service hosted on Cloudflare workers [1]. That doesn't sound good... [1] https://raw.githubusercontent.com/jorgefsilva/beatthatwall/main/main.tampermonkey.js https://raw.githubusercontent.com/jorgefsilva/beatthatwall/m...
- jayass 4y agoYes that is correct. The random web service fetches a copy of the cached version of the page. If you're interested I can show you the source code
- 3np 4y agoPlease do!
- freedomben 4y ago+1, I'd love to see the server-side code as well!
- jayass 4y agoReach me on Twitter and I will give you temporary access to the repo
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- wahnfrieden 4y agoWill you license it for reuse?
- the_absurdist 4y agoI hope he doesn't. Asking that question is the equivalent of walking up to someone and begging for money. I encourage developers here and elsewhere to reward each other for the fruits of their labor, instead of expecting a free lunch.
- e44858 4y agoLooking at the source, it seems like the page is proxied through a CloudFlare worker black box called “cfworker-beatthatwall.jayass.workers.dev”. It would be easier to trust if all the work was done locally.
- vehemenz 4y agoExactly. This type of extension should 100% be blocked from the official store. That said, the userscript is working as intended so far.
- tyingq 4y agoJust for some context, Google did block this one, but there's a ton of extensions on the store that do similar things and are not blocked. Google's review process for chrome extensions is weak.
- napolux 4y agoWhat can go wrong with a website hosting chrome extension freely downloadable by everyone.
- TekMol 4y agoFrom the description, it sounds like this extension just puts "https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:" in front of the current url? If so, you can also do this via a simple bookmarklet: javascript:location.href='https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:'+location.href;{} If you don't know what bookmarklets are: Edit any old bookmark and put the above line into the url field. Next time you click it, it will bring you to the Google cache of the current page you are on.
- jayass 4y agoThat's not the only thing it does. But it's the starting point. After that ir removes some scripts so the paywall don't show again after you load the page
- thrdbndndn 4y agoThat doesn't seem to work well. For example, take this NYT article https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/31/health/life-expectancy-covid-pandemic.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/31/health/life-expectancy-co... Google cache: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/31/health/life-expectancy-covid-pandemic.html https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https:... -- 404 OP's service https://cfworker-beatthatwall.jayass.workers.dev/?url=https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/31/health/life-expectancy-covid-pandemic.html https://cfworker-beatthatwall.jayass.workers.dev/?url=https:... -- works. However, one can adopt your bookmarklet to use OP's service when needed instead of installing extension/userscript that seem to match all the sites.
- scoopertrooper 4y agoIt doesn't work because there is no Google cache entry for that page. They've instructed Google not to cache it. > <meta data-rh="true" name="robots" content="noarchive, max-image-preview:large"/> So, OP must be using some other means to retrieve the page. In the case of NY Times, they're likely just grabbing the non-archived version and performing an operation similar to 12ft ladder. Google cache fetching seems like it might be an effective strategy for a site like Washington Post that have extremely effective paywall enforcement (till your turn off JS), but also allow Google cache.
- kube-system 4y agoInstalling extensions in developer mode is not a good solution. It’s not good to train users to do this because this is what malicious extensions do. Also, this will produce popup warnings and/or they can be automatically disabled by the browser. I don’t even run extensions that I have developed myself in developer mode because it’s a PITA.
- therealmarv 4y agoreplace https:// https:// of a paywall site with archive.is/ no extension needed. And if you want to use Google cache (and Google is your main search engine) just add ? in front of URL and with two clicks (dots->cached) you get to the cached version of Google. again no extension needed. Stay safe.
- znpy 4y agoI wonder if the various change imposed by the eu on the matter of alternative app stores also applies to web browsers extensions stores. Like, what if I want to run a different marketplace for chrome/firefox/safari extensions?
- butz 4y agoTechnically Google is blocking all of Chrome extensions, as they require Google account to install.
- josefresco 4y agoI use the Chrome Extension (available in the web store) Web Archives for this purpose: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/web-archives/hkligngkgcpcolhcnkgccglchdafcnao https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/web-archives/hklig...