14 ms·

Mozilla removes Bypass Paywalls Clean extension from its add-ons repository

321 points by hexage1814 4y ago

notafraudster 4y ago
I didn't realize this was a thing! Also, the article notes the extension makes its actual ruleset available, so if you use e.g. uBlock Origin, you can add this as a rules list: https://gitlab.com/magnolia1234/bypass-paywalls-clean-filters/-/raw/main/bpc-paywall-filter.txt https://gitlab.com/magnolia1234/bypass-paywalls-clean-filter... Nice!
- baal80spam 4y ago
  I used this extension for several years but I also didn't know you can use a filter rule for this. I'd like to know what makes Mozilla know what is good for me though.
- jszymborski 4y ago
  Talk about the Streissand effect!
  - scarface74 4y ago
    Yes for all of the people that both use Firefox and read HN…
    - Sebb767 4y ago
      I'd make the educated guess that HN contains disproportionally many Firefox users, so the overlap is not quite as small as you (implicitly) suggest. OTOH, any HN discussion will have a paywall-avoiding link posted nearly instantly anyway.
      - scarface74 4y ago
        And that’s still a tiny number in the grand scheme of things.
    - jszymborski 4y ago
      I mean, I think it's a narrower demographic that browse the Firefox extension shop looking for obscure extensions for fun, so I wouldn't be surprised if it's a net increase.
- mook 4y ago
  Note that readme in that repo says it isn't quite as good and you may want to use it alongside a user script. https://gitlab.com/magnolia1234/bypass-paywalls-clean-filters#bypass-paywalls-clean-filters https://gitlab.com/magnolia1234/bypass-paywalls-clean-filter...
- gruez 4y ago
  I'm pretty sure that's not a complete set of bypasses. I know for a fact that some bypasses require setting the referrer value (eg. so it's from google/facebook) or setting a specific cookie value. There's no way those can be done from a ublock filter list.
- neodymiumphish 4y ago
  Yeah, this feels like such a Streisand Effect inducer. Vivaldi browser supports these rulesets directly, without any extensions, and for Android users, you can use the AdGuard Content Blocker add on for Samsung Internet Browser to add this as a user rule. I'll be using it everywhere now that I know about it.
NDizzle 4y ago
This means it's a good one. Checking it out, now. I love it when this kind of thing backfires.
rvz 4y ago
I didn't know I needed this! Thank you Mozilla for creating a Streisand Effect. Just installed it on Google Chrome.
- titaniumtown 4y ago
  well in a while google chrome isn't going to let you do that anymore!
  - encryptluks2 4y ago
    Hasn't the new uBlock for manifest v3 been working?
  - anthk 4y ago
    As long as you have the developer mode on Iridium, you will. What I'd like it's the same concept but for a standalone micro-proxy, such as 'miniproxy' from tedu@. I mean, I fire up Dillo, Lynx, Links, whatever. It automatically redirects me to an unpaywalled web.
  - fprotthetarball 4y ago
    Edge already refuses to install it through the .CRX file, even in developer mode. I have it installed by loading the unpacked version using these instructions: https://gitlab.com/magnolia1234/bypass-paywalls-chrome-clean#load-unpacked-chrome-microsoft-edge-or-brave-all-desktop https://gitlab.com/magnolia1234/bypass-paywalls-chrome-clean...
mg 4y ago
Publishers are in a tough spot these days. Especially small ones. On the one hand, there is no marketplace for unobtrusive ads without JavaScript. So if publishers use what is available (AdSense etc), half of their users will block the ads and the other half will hate them. On the other hand, paywalls are also hated and when publishers use those, half of their users will stop being users and the other half will circumvent the paywall. What would be cool is a marketplace for simple static text (and static image) ads. Similar to affiliate links, but with an automatism to find out which ads perform best on a given page. I recently tried to promote paid services by other indie entrepreneurs with simple text links. No JS, not tracking, just a simple text link "If you like, check out this product by a fellow indie entrepreneur" and the results were pretty promising. It's just a lot of friction to do it manually. With an automated marketplace, this might make the web a better place.
- sylens 4y ago
  I would like a model where I can pay per article on a website. I am not going to subscribe to Bloomberg because I can’t fit it in my budget, but from time to time I would like the ability to read a single article (either linked from here or from a colleague) and would be willing to pay a small fee. Wish someone (Apple?) would figure this out
  - mg 4y ago
    The problem with this seems to be the nonexistence of micropayments. As far as I know, there is no viable solution to pay $0.01. Which is a pitty, because $0.01 per page would be a CPM of $10 which is crazy high. For most publishers, that would be a big increase in their earnings.
    - mstipetic 4y ago
      Why couldn't I load up my account with $10 or so every month, and have a centralized solution tally up all my consumption and distribute it to all publishers.
      - 4y ago
bastard_op 4y ago
I used to get really annoyed with links posted to HN behind paywalls, then I found paywall bypasser browser plugins that made my life less annoying. I would never go back now and like what, actually pay for news? No, I'll just go find another creative workaround or stop reading news here.
- scarface74 4y ago
  The nerve of people not willing to work for free.
  - giancarlostoro 4y ago
    I really only pay for WSJ, I don't want to pay hundreds of dollars every month just for news which I rarely consume. I did some research as to what sort of bias every news source had, and it seemed like WSJ was trusted the most by "both sides" which caught my attention. I wish news didn't lean one way or the other, it's really tiresome. I just want raw facts. Too many a time I see a crazy headline, people losing their minds, only to pull up the source video or what have you, and discover that they jumped the gun and didn't vet anything.
    - scarface74 4y ago
      On the right, there are two “sides”, your traditional business oriented conservatives/libertarians and your “populists”/“religious conservatives”. The second group does not trust the WSJ at all and it is considered to be part of the “lamestream media”. I find the WSJs news articles (which I get through Apple News), to be relatively even handed. Now the op ed is a different story. For political news, “The Hill” seems to be even handed.
    - asdff 4y ago
      The problem with news and raw facts, is that the incentive to embellish or leave out the raw facts one way or another to drive some narrative is just too damn high. Ignorance is bliss sometimes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model
dewey 4y ago
"Now, it is possible that one of the sites hit the Bypass Paywalls Clean add-on with a DMCA notice, which in turn could have resulted in Mozilla delisting the extension from its store. I'm not entirely sure about this, because if that was the case, wouldn't Mozilla have notified the developer?" Before you get outraged, please keep in mind that this is all speculation at this point and there's no official response from Mozilla saying they removed it for the reason of it being a paywall bypass.
- 0xcde4c3db 4y ago
  Also, AFAIK notification only pertains to one part of DMCA: the "safe harbor" for infringing user-posted content. DRM-breaking tech is banned under a separate section that, to my knowledge, has no equivalent protection for the "service provider". So if Mozilla's lawyers became aware of this add-on, they might have reasonably concluded that hosting it was an unacceptable risk.
- layer8 4y ago
  It’s still bad that they would remove any add-on without notifying the maintainer of the reason.
  - tarotuser 4y ago
    "But if we told you why, you could..... subvert the system!"
  - altairprime 4y ago
    The maintainer says they received a DMCA notification here: https://gitlab.com/magnolia1234/bypass-paywalls-firefox-clean/-/issues/905#note_1276138260 https://gitlab.com/magnolia1234/bypass-paywalls-firefox-clea... That doesn’t say whether or not they intend to counterclaim, though.
peoplearepeople 4y ago
Huh TIL, added to ublock origin!
- trts 4y ago
  That extension was constantly asking me for new site permissions as they adjusted the filter list. Grateful to the developers for their work but think I might actually prefer the ublock addition going forward.
- akvadrako 4y ago
  It's here FYI https://gitlab.com/magnolia1234/bypass-paywalls-clean-filters/-/raw/main/bpc-paywall-filter.txt https://gitlab.com/magnolia1234/bypass-paywalls-clean-filter...
- penguin_booze 4y ago
  As an experiment, I added the list to uBlocker earlier today. It wasn't the same as running the extension directly. For example, for WSJ ariticles, the extension falls back to AMP pages if it can't unblock. uBlock list, however, failed to fall back, so I wasn't able to read WSJ.
- sva_ 4y ago
  It doesn't seem to work with all sites. Seems that there is more to it than just a blocklist.
- croutonwagon 4y ago
  i picked the wrong day to rebuild my firefox browser. I noticed the extension mission, and couldnt find it in the add-ons store. Thought i was going crazy. hmmff
loteck 4y ago
> This is how the internet should be, free for everyone, without censorship and restrictions. I wonder if the author writes this content for free or if they expect to be paid. Given Ghacks' privacy policy where 12+ categories of personal data tracking are in use, including precise geolocation, I suspect they do expect compensation for their work, and that it is funded through targeted advertising that requires surveillance tech and data gathering. If the choice is between publishers setting prices for their products or readers being forced to unwillingly participate in the advertising surveillance industry, I'll take the walls. But there probably is no such choice. The money Ghacks makes collecting and selling sensitive personal data is probably so sweet it couldn't be replaced by subscriptions. Just saying, the author should probably think a little deeper about their "free for everyone without restriction" idealogy.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- xattt 4y ago
  Are you referring to the author of the article or the author of the plug-in?
- kurthr 4y ago
  Yeah, I'm not sure you've exactly said it, but what you see with most walls, is that you can pay for the content, but they USE that payment info to track you and sell it to make even more! I'm appreciating the down votes. Perhaps YT or Apple don't sell info (for how long?), but HBO, NYT, Disney, and of course Amazon certainly do. Conde' Nast, and probably and your favorite blog/mag as well. Is it surprising, there's money on the table and an identifiable account!?
  - brewdad 4y ago
    It used to be said that if you aren't the customer you are the product. Now we get to be both the customer AND the product.
- arp242 4y ago
  No, you have it wrong. Journalists should live off air, sunlight, and river water. They have no need for money and expecting to get paid is simply greedy.
post-factum 4y ago
How does this compare to https://github.com/iamadamdev/bypass-paywalls-chrome https://github.com/iamadamdev/bypass-paywalls-chrome ?
- wkat4242 4y ago
  That was the original. The "clean" version author objected to it asking for a blanket permission for all sites I believe. The original seems to hardly be updated now.
  - Semaphor 4y ago
    According to TFA, the non-clean version also used Google Analytics.
    - wkat4242 4y ago
      Oh ok, good point. I didn't remember the discussion from the time in detail and I didn't read TFA because it asked for so many cookie permissions and the opt out button didn't appear :/
      - Semaphor 4y ago
        uBo or uMatrix are blocking that for me ;)
        wkat4242 4y ago
        Strange, I have uBo too and it didn't (on mobile)
        Semaphor 4y ago
        Not that strange, it probably simply means uMatrix is responsible ;)
zephrx1111 4y ago
The pay that can be bypassed with a FF add on is not a “wall”. They want the pay but don’t want to invest to build a solid wall, I’d say good luck.
- wkat4242 4y ago
  They want to have their cake and eat it. Lure people in with content indexed by Google and then ask for money when they want to view it. Bait and switch.
  - RobotToaster 4y ago
    It used to be that displaying content to the google bot that is different to what you show actual users could get you delisted from google, did something change?
    - ezfe 4y ago
      They're referring to free access when google is the referral source, but paid otherwise. This has never been disallowed. Furthermore, Google wants everything to be accurately indexed so giving Google access so they can index it wouldn't be frowned upon. This is usually done by putting the title and first paragraph online but hiding the rest of the article.
      - beeboop 4y ago
        The trick to find an article for free by searching for it and having Google be the referral seems to not work almost all the time these days.
Semaphor 4y ago
> The add-on won't be on Mozilla's add-on store again though (DMCA takedown). > Edited by magnolia1234 12 minutes ago From the GH page, guess they got their notification.
- Vinnl 4y ago
  Source: https://gitlab.com/magnolia1234/bypass-paywalls-firefox-clean/-/issues/905#note_1276138260 https://gitlab.com/magnolia1234/bypass-paywalls-firefox-clea...
- wkat4242 4y ago
  That DMCA reference makes no sense. The addon doesn't distribute any copyrighted content. It also sets a pretty worrying precedent. What is the advertisers start claiming uBlock Origin messes with their copyright?
  - coldpie 4y ago
    "[The DMCA] criminalizes production and dissemination of technology, devices, or services intended to circumvent measures that control access to copyrighted works (commonly known as digital rights management or DRM)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMCA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMCA
    - boomboomsubban 4y ago
      DRM circumvention requires a court order to take down, despite the recent YouTube-dl takedown. So yes, it could be that, but the software author should get more than a message from Mozilla.
    - wkat4242 4y ago
      Fair enough, I didn't know that. This law doesn't apply to me though as an EU citizen. The question is: Is it really DRM if they provide access to google for free? After all, this is the loophole that these addons use. They pretend to be a crawler, or they block some kind of javascript the bots don't parse.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
whoopdedo 4y ago
The web needs a "doctor's office" model for media subscriptions. I recalled that when print newspapers and magazines were a thing I would read articles in the New York Times or Time magazine without paying because the current issues were provided gratis in a doctor's waiting room. Or dentist, or a restaurant, or even someone leaving it on a bus seat. The publishers overlooked the potential for shared subscriptions when they transitioned to digital. Or they resented it because of the lost money it represents.
- AdmiralAsshat 4y ago
  I'm able to read most of those on my tablet via Libby/Overdrive, but my library's digital collection seems to be better than most. I've tried to setup my parents in another state with the same service using their local library cards, and the selection is pretty slim by comparison.
- dralley 4y ago
  That existed for a few years, it was called "Scroll" and then it got bought by Twitter and merged into Twitter Blue, which caused me to cancel my subscription. As far as I can tell nothing has really happened with it since then.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- carlosjobim 4y ago
  Is there anything more to your argument than that you want your media for free and don't want to pay for it?
  - asdff 4y ago
    There's no reason why businesses shouldn't be working with library systems on these. Papers like nyt claim to be the paper of record but make it as hard as possible to actually read in the supposed paper of record. Doesn't hurt the HN demographic any to pay for these subscriptions, but there is a whole segment of the population that is now left out and excluded from reading "the authoritative" take on events because its yet another recurring charge they have to make room for in their already strained budget. Somehow I feel like that doesn't leave our society better off than the alternative of being a little bit more permissive with who gets to read the news.
pornel 4y ago
I think it's justifiable to reject ads, because there are more reasons for it than just wanting stuff for free. But bypassing of paywalls IMHO crosses a line. Nobody owes you free content. Ads almost always come with intrusive tracking, and the adtech industry is out of control. They're full of sleazy dark patterns. They do a poor job filtering phishing and malware. The personalized ad model has devalued reputable publishers and made any clickbait profitable. But if the ads don't pay, something has to. There are reasonable business and technical reasons why paywalls aren't 100% secure (e.g. potential customers want to sample before buying, subscribers don't like to be forced to log in in in-app browsers that don't remember their cookies, etc.), so the fact that a bypass is technically possible is not an excuse.
- super256 4y ago
  I'd argue that people who use this plugin wouldn't pay for the articles anyway. I think we all know why music & film streaming services succeeded :) And I'm sure offerings like Apple News+ will do follow for text. Anyway, I'm leaving a quote from Gabe Newell here: “The easiest way to stop piracy is not by putting antipiracy technology to work. It’s by giving those people a service that’s better than what they’re receiving from the pirates.”
  - pornel 4y ago
    The sites targeted by the extension are precisely the ones that tried to be gentle, and don't have DRM nor strict login requirements. This is precisely what Gabe argued for. What else do you expect them to do to?
    - super256 4y ago
      > [...] don't have DRM nor strict login requirements. This is precisely what Gabe argued for. No. Gabe did not argue against DRM or logins, but he argued for better service. The steam login wall and DRM are certainly not the better service he meant. We are still lacking a product with great execution in the news space. I'm expecting something similar to spotify/apple music or steam.
ddtaylor 4y ago
The dmca complaint essentially makes this like the DVD copying / flag fiasco all over again.
bobobob420 4y ago
Anyways you are not missing out from paywalled articles. This will be a never ending battle but it looks like we need an open source extension store :)
- MMS21 4y ago
  https://greasyfork.org/en https://greasyfork.org/en is sort of what you're looking for
linhns 4y ago
Can turn off JavaScript as an alternative. I admit it won't bypass as much as Bypass Paywalls but works well for sites I often visit.
NelsonMinar 4y ago
This extension is great, I've been using it for a year+. Doesn't work with everything but is more likely to work than any other method I try. (I acknowledge paywall bypassing is fraught. I do subscribe to several news sites. But I won't subscribe to the 50+ sites I might want to read one article on every few months.)
megous 4y ago
So will (did?) Mozilla stop signing the extension, too? The article talks about installing usnigned version (like that's possible for people who want to run normal Firefox).
partiallypro 4y ago
I really wish publications would push for a bundled model and work together to achieve it. I would pay $15/month to not have to deal with a paywall on major publications; but I don't read them often enough individually to justify the cost. I jump around from The Times, The Post, The New Yorker, WSJ, Economist, and various others. The one publication subscription model works in print...but online when someone shares a link to an Economist article, I'm not paying their fee just for that article when I already pay for 2 others. Twitter tried to do something like this with Twitter Blue, but it failed miserably and lacked crucial partners, even pre-Elon.
- rebeccaskinner 4y ago
  I briefly worked at a startup that was trying to build this. It's technically possible in a lot of different ways, but the business culture is so far removed from this approach that it seems impossible right now. The sites that are still successful are all convinced they are on track to own the entire online news media market and won't do anything to give up an absolute iron grip on their experience and readership, especially if it might mean acknowledging the existence of a competing news source. The smaller regional and local news sites are all basically zombie companies now anyway. They buy an off-the-shelf newspaper CMS tool, add in every possible monetization plugin they can possibly cram into the tool, an AP feed, and hire like 3 part time journalists to add in just enough shallow local flavor that nobody cares about so that they can try to get some clicks in their local market. They aren't motivated to participate in systems that let you buy content, because they don't actually make any content.
- criddell 4y ago
  I’m on a free trial of Apple News+ right now, but the model is basically pay $10 / month and get access to lots of stuff: https://www.apple.com/apple-news/publications/ https://www.apple.com/apple-news/publications/ I really like that the publications don’t get my email or physical address. No spam in my post office box or inbox.
  - gnicholas 4y ago
    My understanding is that Apple News+ subscribers get access to some of the content from these publishers, but not all of the content.
0x_rs 4y ago
Developer Edition and ESR (behind a flag) support unsigned extensions [0]. It's not possible to self-sign them, and standard release Firefox won't accept them (there's also unbranded builds that do not verify signatures). I don't like it myself, but whenever I recall the absurd amount of malicious addons that would install themselves in browsers up until about a decade ago into the average person's PCs, I think it's a fair decision, but development of web extensions is still a massive pain. If the removal is not undone, I think they'll be asked to take down the signed xpi they're hosting like [1] were. >Self-distributing a version that we rejected due to policy violations is circumventing our review process and our policies. We ask that you stop self-hosting rejected and/or violating versions immediately (by Friday, Dec 2). Otherwise we might have to block your add-on from running in Firefox. 0. https://wiki.mozilla.org/Add-ons/Extension_Signing https://wiki.mozilla.org/Add-ons/Extension_Signing 1. https://github.com/orgs/ActivityWatch/discussions/818#discussioncomment-4017528 https://github.com/orgs/ActivityWatch/discussions/818#discus...
- josephcsible 4y ago
  > >Self-distributing a version that we rejected due to policy violations is circumventing our review process and our policies. We ask that you stop self-hosting rejected and/or violating versions immediately (by Friday, Dec 2). Otherwise we might have to block your add-on from running in Firefox. Blocking a sideloaded add-on from running for any reason other than it being unambiguous malware world be a major abuse of power and breach of trust on Mozilla's part.
metastart 4y ago
The Epic Privacy Browser for Windows has this extension built-in. Other platform versions will be getting it soon.
avipars 4y ago
Add it from their github repo
d33 4y ago
This move is the exact polar opposite of how I'd like Mozilla to behave. And possibly a strong case for decentralization. It's confusing to me that we keep accepting internet as it is and modifications to what we view - such as ad blockers or paywall removal tools - are so rare. Back in the time Firefox had a major part of the market share, now it's negligible. Instead of using that situation to take brave moves aiming at re-imagining the internet, they succumb to content creators instead of working for the user. I wish some company forked Firefox and took it back in the direction it aimed for. Also: > you should have gotten the copy of DMCA take down request. I would love to know who did DMCA take down request. How is this story NOT about who performed the DMCA take-down?

321 points by hexage1814 4y ago

I didn't realize this was a thing! Also, the article notes the extension makes its actual ruleset available, so if you use e.g. uBlock Origin, you can add this as a rules list: https://gitlab.com/magnolia1234/bypass-paywalls-clean-filters/-/raw/main/bpc-paywall-filter.txt https://gitlab.com/magnolia1234/bypass-paywalls-clean-filter... Nice!

baal80spam 4y ago
I used this extension for several years but I also didn't know you can use a filter rule for this. I'd like to know what makes Mozilla know what is good for me though.
jszymborski 4y ago
Talk about the Streissand effect!
- scarface74 4y ago
  Yes for all of the people that both use Firefox and read HN…
  - Sebb767 4y ago
    I'd make the educated guess that HN contains disproportionally many Firefox users, so the overlap is not quite as small as you (implicitly) suggest. OTOH, any HN discussion will have a paywall-avoiding link posted nearly instantly anyway.
    - scarface74 4y ago
      And that’s still a tiny number in the grand scheme of things.
  - jszymborski 4y ago
    I mean, I think it's a narrower demographic that browse the Firefox extension shop looking for obscure extensions for fun, so I wouldn't be surprised if it's a net increase.
mook 4y ago
Note that readme in that repo says it isn't quite as good and you may want to use it alongside a user script. https://gitlab.com/magnolia1234/bypass-paywalls-clean-filters#bypass-paywalls-clean-filters https://gitlab.com/magnolia1234/bypass-paywalls-clean-filter...
gruez 4y ago
I'm pretty sure that's not a complete set of bypasses. I know for a fact that some bypasses require setting the referrer value (eg. so it's from google/facebook) or setting a specific cookie value. There's no way those can be done from a ublock filter list.
neodymiumphish 4y ago
Yeah, this feels like such a Streisand Effect inducer. Vivaldi browser supports these rulesets directly, without any extensions, and for Android users, you can use the AdGuard Content Blocker add on for Samsung Internet Browser to add this as a user rule. I'll be using it everywhere now that I know about it.

NDizzle 4y ago

This means it's a good one. Checking it out, now. I love it when this kind of thing backfires.

rvz 4y ago

I didn't know I needed this! Thank you Mozilla for creating a Streisand Effect. Just installed it on Google Chrome.

titaniumtown 4y ago
well in a while google chrome isn't going to let you do that anymore!
- encryptluks2 4y ago
  Hasn't the new uBlock for manifest v3 been working?
- anthk 4y ago
  As long as you have the developer mode on Iridium, you will. What I'd like it's the same concept but for a standalone micro-proxy, such as 'miniproxy' from tedu@. I mean, I fire up Dillo, Lynx, Links, whatever. It automatically redirects me to an unpaywalled web.
- fprotthetarball 4y ago
  Edge already refuses to install it through the .CRX file, even in developer mode. I have it installed by loading the unpacked version using these instructions: https://gitlab.com/magnolia1234/bypass-paywalls-chrome-clean#load-unpacked-chrome-microsoft-edge-or-brave-all-desktop https://gitlab.com/magnolia1234/bypass-paywalls-chrome-clean...

mg 4y ago

Publishers are in a tough spot these days. Especially small ones. On the one hand, there is no marketplace for unobtrusive ads without JavaScript. So if publishers use what is available (AdSense etc), half of their users will block the ads and the other half will hate them. On the other hand, paywalls are also hated and when publishers use those, half of their users will stop being users and the other half will circumvent the paywall. What would be cool is a marketplace for simple static text (and static image) ads. Similar to affiliate links, but with an automatism to find out which ads perform best on a given page. I recently tried to promote paid services by other indie entrepreneurs with simple text links. No JS, not tracking, just a simple text link "If you like, check out this product by a fellow indie entrepreneur" and the results were pretty promising. It's just a lot of friction to do it manually. With an automated marketplace, this might make the web a better place.

sylens 4y ago
I would like a model where I can pay per article on a website. I am not going to subscribe to Bloomberg because I can’t fit it in my budget, but from time to time I would like the ability to read a single article (either linked from here or from a colleague) and would be willing to pay a small fee. Wish someone (Apple?) would figure this out
- mg 4y ago
  The problem with this seems to be the nonexistence of micropayments. As far as I know, there is no viable solution to pay $0.01. Which is a pitty, because $0.01 per page would be a CPM of $10 which is crazy high. For most publishers, that would be a big increase in their earnings.
  - mstipetic 4y ago
    Why couldn't I load up my account with $10 or so every month, and have a centralized solution tally up all my consumption and distribute it to all publishers.
    - 4y ago

bastard_op 4y ago

I used to get really annoyed with links posted to HN behind paywalls, then I found paywall bypasser browser plugins that made my life less annoying. I would never go back now and like what, actually pay for news? No, I'll just go find another creative workaround or stop reading news here.

scarface74 4y ago
The nerve of people not willing to work for free.
- giancarlostoro 4y ago
  I really only pay for WSJ, I don't want to pay hundreds of dollars every month just for news which I rarely consume. I did some research as to what sort of bias every news source had, and it seemed like WSJ was trusted the most by "both sides" which caught my attention. I wish news didn't lean one way or the other, it's really tiresome. I just want raw facts. Too many a time I see a crazy headline, people losing their minds, only to pull up the source video or what have you, and discover that they jumped the gun and didn't vet anything.
  - scarface74 4y ago
    On the right, there are two “sides”, your traditional business oriented conservatives/libertarians and your “populists”/“religious conservatives”. The second group does not trust the WSJ at all and it is considered to be part of the “lamestream media”. I find the WSJs news articles (which I get through Apple News), to be relatively even handed. Now the op ed is a different story. For political news, “The Hill” seems to be even handed.
  - asdff 4y ago
    The problem with news and raw facts, is that the incentive to embellish or leave out the raw facts one way or another to drive some narrative is just too damn high. Ignorance is bliss sometimes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model

dewey 4y ago

"Now, it is possible that one of the sites hit the Bypass Paywalls Clean add-on with a DMCA notice, which in turn could have resulted in Mozilla delisting the extension from its store. I'm not entirely sure about this, because if that was the case, wouldn't Mozilla have notified the developer?" Before you get outraged, please keep in mind that this is all speculation at this point and there's no official response from Mozilla saying they removed it for the reason of it being a paywall bypass.

0xcde4c3db 4y ago
Also, AFAIK notification only pertains to one part of DMCA: the "safe harbor" for infringing user-posted content. DRM-breaking tech is banned under a separate section that, to my knowledge, has no equivalent protection for the "service provider". So if Mozilla's lawyers became aware of this add-on, they might have reasonably concluded that hosting it was an unacceptable risk.
layer8 4y ago
It’s still bad that they would remove any add-on without notifying the maintainer of the reason.
- tarotuser 4y ago
  "But if we told you why, you could..... subvert the system!"
- altairprime 4y ago
  The maintainer says they received a DMCA notification here: https://gitlab.com/magnolia1234/bypass-paywalls-firefox-clean/-/issues/905#note_1276138260 https://gitlab.com/magnolia1234/bypass-paywalls-firefox-clea... That doesn’t say whether or not they intend to counterclaim, though.

peoplearepeople 4y ago

Huh TIL, added to ublock origin!

trts 4y ago
That extension was constantly asking me for new site permissions as they adjusted the filter list. Grateful to the developers for their work but think I might actually prefer the ublock addition going forward.
akvadrako 4y ago
It's here FYI https://gitlab.com/magnolia1234/bypass-paywalls-clean-filters/-/raw/main/bpc-paywall-filter.txt https://gitlab.com/magnolia1234/bypass-paywalls-clean-filter...
penguin_booze 4y ago
As an experiment, I added the list to uBlocker earlier today. It wasn't the same as running the extension directly. For example, for WSJ ariticles, the extension falls back to AMP pages if it can't unblock. uBlock list, however, failed to fall back, so I wasn't able to read WSJ.
sva_ 4y ago
It doesn't seem to work with all sites. Seems that there is more to it than just a blocklist.
croutonwagon 4y ago
i picked the wrong day to rebuild my firefox browser. I noticed the extension mission, and couldnt find it in the add-ons store. Thought i was going crazy. hmmff

loteck 4y ago

> This is how the internet should be, free for everyone, without censorship and restrictions. I wonder if the author writes this content for free or if they expect to be paid. Given Ghacks' privacy policy where 12+ categories of personal data tracking are in use, including precise geolocation, I suspect they do expect compensation for their work, and that it is funded through targeted advertising that requires surveillance tech and data gathering. If the choice is between publishers setting prices for their products or readers being forced to unwillingly participate in the advertising surveillance industry, I'll take the walls. But there probably is no such choice. The money Ghacks makes collecting and selling sensitive personal data is probably so sweet it couldn't be replaced by subscriptions. Just saying, the author should probably think a little deeper about their "free for everyone without restriction" idealogy.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
xattt 4y ago
Are you referring to the author of the article or the author of the plug-in?
kurthr 4y ago
Yeah, I'm not sure you've exactly said it, but what you see with most walls, is that you can pay for the content, but they USE that payment info to track you and sell it to make even more! I'm appreciating the down votes. Perhaps YT or Apple don't sell info (for how long?), but HBO, NYT, Disney, and of course Amazon certainly do. Conde' Nast, and probably and your favorite blog/mag as well. Is it surprising, there's money on the table and an identifiable account!?
- brewdad 4y ago
  It used to be said that if you aren't the customer you are the product. Now we get to be both the customer AND the product.
arp242 4y ago
No, you have it wrong. Journalists should live off air, sunlight, and river water. They have no need for money and expecting to get paid is simply greedy.

post-factum 4y ago

How does this compare to https://github.com/iamadamdev/bypass-paywalls-chrome https://github.com/iamadamdev/bypass-paywalls-chrome ?

wkat4242 4y ago
That was the original. The "clean" version author objected to it asking for a blanket permission for all sites I believe. The original seems to hardly be updated now.
- Semaphor 4y ago
  According to TFA, the non-clean version also used Google Analytics.
  - wkat4242 4y ago
    Oh ok, good point. I didn't remember the discussion from the time in detail and I didn't read TFA because it asked for so many cookie permissions and the opt out button didn't appear :/
    - Semaphor 4y ago
      uBo or uMatrix are blocking that for me ;)
      - wkat4242 4y ago
        Strange, I have uBo too and it didn't (on mobile)
        Semaphor 4y ago
        Not that strange, it probably simply means uMatrix is responsible ;)

zephrx1111 4y ago

The pay that can be bypassed with a FF add on is not a “wall”. They want the pay but don’t want to invest to build a solid wall, I’d say good luck.

wkat4242 4y ago
They want to have their cake and eat it. Lure people in with content indexed by Google and then ask for money when they want to view it. Bait and switch.
- RobotToaster 4y ago
  It used to be that displaying content to the google bot that is different to what you show actual users could get you delisted from google, did something change?
  - ezfe 4y ago
    They're referring to free access when google is the referral source, but paid otherwise. This has never been disallowed. Furthermore, Google wants everything to be accurately indexed so giving Google access so they can index it wouldn't be frowned upon. This is usually done by putting the title and first paragraph online but hiding the rest of the article.
    - beeboop 4y ago
      The trick to find an article for free by searching for it and having Google be the referral seems to not work almost all the time these days.

Semaphor 4y ago

> The add-on won't be on Mozilla's add-on store again though (DMCA takedown). > Edited by magnolia1234 12 minutes ago From the GH page, guess they got their notification.

Vinnl 4y ago
Source: https://gitlab.com/magnolia1234/bypass-paywalls-firefox-clean/-/issues/905#note_1276138260 https://gitlab.com/magnolia1234/bypass-paywalls-firefox-clea...
wkat4242 4y ago
That DMCA reference makes no sense. The addon doesn't distribute any copyrighted content. It also sets a pretty worrying precedent. What is the advertisers start claiming uBlock Origin messes with their copyright?
- coldpie 4y ago
  "[The DMCA] criminalizes production and dissemination of technology, devices, or services intended to circumvent measures that control access to copyrighted works (commonly known as digital rights management or DRM)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMCA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMCA
  - boomboomsubban 4y ago
    DRM circumvention requires a court order to take down, despite the recent YouTube-dl takedown. So yes, it could be that, but the software author should get more than a message from Mozilla.
  - wkat4242 4y ago
    Fair enough, I didn't know that. This law doesn't apply to me though as an EU citizen. The question is: Is it really DRM if they provide access to google for free? After all, this is the loophole that these addons use. They pretend to be a crawler, or they block some kind of javascript the bots don't parse.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

whoopdedo 4y ago

The web needs a "doctor's office" model for media subscriptions. I recalled that when print newspapers and magazines were a thing I would read articles in the New York Times or Time magazine without paying because the current issues were provided gratis in a doctor's waiting room. Or dentist, or a restaurant, or even someone leaving it on a bus seat. The publishers overlooked the potential for shared subscriptions when they transitioned to digital. Or they resented it because of the lost money it represents.

AdmiralAsshat 4y ago
I'm able to read most of those on my tablet via Libby/Overdrive, but my library's digital collection seems to be better than most. I've tried to setup my parents in another state with the same service using their local library cards, and the selection is pretty slim by comparison.
dralley 4y ago
That existed for a few years, it was called "Scroll" and then it got bought by Twitter and merged into Twitter Blue, which caused me to cancel my subscription. As far as I can tell nothing has really happened with it since then.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
carlosjobim 4y ago
Is there anything more to your argument than that you want your media for free and don't want to pay for it?
- asdff 4y ago
  There's no reason why businesses shouldn't be working with library systems on these. Papers like nyt claim to be the paper of record but make it as hard as possible to actually read in the supposed paper of record. Doesn't hurt the HN demographic any to pay for these subscriptions, but there is a whole segment of the population that is now left out and excluded from reading "the authoritative" take on events because its yet another recurring charge they have to make room for in their already strained budget. Somehow I feel like that doesn't leave our society better off than the alternative of being a little bit more permissive with who gets to read the news.

pornel 4y ago

I think it's justifiable to reject ads, because there are more reasons for it than just wanting stuff for free. But bypassing of paywalls IMHO crosses a line. Nobody owes you free content. Ads almost always come with intrusive tracking, and the adtech industry is out of control. They're full of sleazy dark patterns. They do a poor job filtering phishing and malware. The personalized ad model has devalued reputable publishers and made any clickbait profitable. But if the ads don't pay, something has to. There are reasonable business and technical reasons why paywalls aren't 100% secure (e.g. potential customers want to sample before buying, subscribers don't like to be forced to log in in in-app browsers that don't remember their cookies, etc.), so the fact that a bypass is technically possible is not an excuse.

super256 4y ago
I'd argue that people who use this plugin wouldn't pay for the articles anyway. I think we all know why music & film streaming services succeeded :) And I'm sure offerings like Apple News+ will do follow for text. Anyway, I'm leaving a quote from Gabe Newell here: “The easiest way to stop piracy is not by putting antipiracy technology to work. It’s by giving those people a service that’s better than what they’re receiving from the pirates.”
- pornel 4y ago
  The sites targeted by the extension are precisely the ones that tried to be gentle, and don't have DRM nor strict login requirements. This is precisely what Gabe argued for. What else do you expect them to do to?
  - super256 4y ago
    > [...] don't have DRM nor strict login requirements. This is precisely what Gabe argued for. No. Gabe did not argue against DRM or logins, but he argued for better service. The steam login wall and DRM are certainly not the better service he meant. We are still lacking a product with great execution in the news space. I'm expecting something similar to spotify/apple music or steam.

ddtaylor 4y ago

The dmca complaint essentially makes this like the DVD copying / flag fiasco all over again.

bobobob420 4y ago

Anyways you are not missing out from paywalled articles. This will be a never ending battle but it looks like we need an open source extension store :)

MMS21 4y ago
https://greasyfork.org/en https://greasyfork.org/en is sort of what you're looking for

linhns 4y ago

Can turn off JavaScript as an alternative. I admit it won't bypass as much as Bypass Paywalls but works well for sites I often visit.

NelsonMinar 4y ago

This extension is great, I've been using it for a year+. Doesn't work with everything but is more likely to work than any other method I try. (I acknowledge paywall bypassing is fraught. I do subscribe to several news sites. But I won't subscribe to the 50+ sites I might want to read one article on every few months.)

megous 4y ago

So will (did?) Mozilla stop signing the extension, too? The article talks about installing usnigned version (like that's possible for people who want to run normal Firefox).

partiallypro 4y ago

I really wish publications would push for a bundled model and work together to achieve it. I would pay $15/month to not have to deal with a paywall on major publications; but I don't read them often enough individually to justify the cost. I jump around from The Times, The Post, The New Yorker, WSJ, Economist, and various others. The one publication subscription model works in print...but online when someone shares a link to an Economist article, I'm not paying their fee just for that article when I already pay for 2 others. Twitter tried to do something like this with Twitter Blue, but it failed miserably and lacked crucial partners, even pre-Elon.

rebeccaskinner 4y ago
I briefly worked at a startup that was trying to build this. It's technically possible in a lot of different ways, but the business culture is so far removed from this approach that it seems impossible right now. The sites that are still successful are all convinced they are on track to own the entire online news media market and won't do anything to give up an absolute iron grip on their experience and readership, especially if it might mean acknowledging the existence of a competing news source. The smaller regional and local news sites are all basically zombie companies now anyway. They buy an off-the-shelf newspaper CMS tool, add in every possible monetization plugin they can possibly cram into the tool, an AP feed, and hire like 3 part time journalists to add in just enough shallow local flavor that nobody cares about so that they can try to get some clicks in their local market. They aren't motivated to participate in systems that let you buy content, because they don't actually make any content.
criddell 4y ago
I’m on a free trial of Apple News+ right now, but the model is basically pay $10 / month and get access to lots of stuff: https://www.apple.com/apple-news/publications/ https://www.apple.com/apple-news/publications/ I really like that the publications don’t get my email or physical address. No spam in my post office box or inbox.
- gnicholas 4y ago
  My understanding is that Apple News+ subscribers get access to some of the content from these publishers, but not all of the content.

0x_rs 4y ago

Developer Edition and ESR (behind a flag) support unsigned extensions [0]. It's not possible to self-sign them, and standard release Firefox won't accept them (there's also unbranded builds that do not verify signatures). I don't like it myself, but whenever I recall the absurd amount of malicious addons that would install themselves in browsers up until about a decade ago into the average person's PCs, I think it's a fair decision, but development of web extensions is still a massive pain. If the removal is not undone, I think they'll be asked to take down the signed xpi they're hosting like [1] were. >Self-distributing a version that we rejected due to policy violations is circumventing our review process and our policies. We ask that you stop self-hosting rejected and/or violating versions immediately (by Friday, Dec 2). Otherwise we might have to block your add-on from running in Firefox. 0. https://wiki.mozilla.org/Add-ons/Extension_Signing https://wiki.mozilla.org/Add-ons/Extension_Signing 1. https://github.com/orgs/ActivityWatch/discussions/818#discussioncomment-4017528 https://github.com/orgs/ActivityWatch/discussions/818#discus...

josephcsible 4y ago
> >Self-distributing a version that we rejected due to policy violations is circumventing our review process and our policies. We ask that you stop self-hosting rejected and/or violating versions immediately (by Friday, Dec 2). Otherwise we might have to block your add-on from running in Firefox. Blocking a sideloaded add-on from running for any reason other than it being unambiguous malware world be a major abuse of power and breach of trust on Mozilla's part.

metastart 4y ago

The Epic Privacy Browser for Windows has this extension built-in. Other platform versions will be getting it soon.

avipars 4y ago

Add it from their github repo

d33 4y ago

This move is the exact polar opposite of how I'd like Mozilla to behave. And possibly a strong case for decentralization. It's confusing to me that we keep accepting internet as it is and modifications to what we view - such as ad blockers or paywall removal tools - are so rare. Back in the time Firefox had a major part of the market share, now it's negligible. Instead of using that situation to take brave moves aiming at re-imagining the internet, they succumb to content creators instead of working for the user. I wish some company forked Firefox and took it back in the direction it aimed for. Also: > you should have gotten the copy of DMCA take down request. I would love to know who did DMCA take down request. How is this story NOT about who performed the DMCA take-down?