5 ms·

>> This is a simple self hosted server that has a simple but powerful interface to block ads, paywalls, and other nonsense. Specially for sites like medium, new

>> This is a simple self hosted server that has a simple but powerful interface to block ads, paywalls, and other nonsense. Specially for sites like medium, new york times which have paid articles that you normally cannot read. Now I do want you to support the creators you benefit from but if you just wanna see one single article and move on with your day then this might be helpful Personally I'm not a fan of this attitude. I've read and digested the arguments for it, but, for me, it runs close to "theft". For example, read the sentence again, but in the context of a restaurant. Sure I wanna support the creators, but what if I just want a single meal and then get on with my day? Businesses, including news web sites, need to monetize their content. There are a variety of ways they do that. You are free to consume their content or not. You either accept their monetization method as desirable or you do not. The "I just want to read one article" argument doesn't fly. If the article is so compelling, then follow their rules for accessing it. Yes, some sites behave badly. So stop visiting them. There is lots of free content on the web that is well presented and lacks corporate malfeasance. Read some of that instead. I get that I'm gonna get downvoted to oblivion with this post. HN readers are in love with ad blockers and paywall bypasses. But just because you can do something, just because you think it should be "free, no ads", does not make it right. Creators create. They get to choose how the world sees their creation. Support it, don't support it, that's up to you. Deciding to just take it anyway, on your terms (however righteous you feel you are) is not ok.

Daneel_ 2y ago
I agree with you. Where the gap lies for me is that I can’t just buy one meal, I have to sign up for the yearly meal plan even if I just want one meal. A few years ago I tracked how many times I visited some of the various paywalls sites for their articles, and typically it was between 5-10 times per year. One was 30, so I paid for a subscription to them, but I can’t justify several dozens of dollars for 5 articles on many other sites. If I can’t access their content because a bypass doesn’t work then so be it, however I wasn’t willing to pay for that content either. I feel like it’s the classic misconception regarding piracy by the movie industry - I wasn’t willing to pay money for it in the first place, so it’s not lost revenue (unfortunately). I was actually discussing this overall problem with my wife the other day, and I came to the conclusion that I basically want a “Netflix” but for news - I subscribe to one place and I get access to a whole range of publications. That’s worth it to me. I very much don’t see it happening though, sadly.
- protocolture 2y ago
  Really someone just needs to spotify this shit. Scrape everything and hand out pennies based on who attracted what eyesballs.
  - querez 2y ago
    The problem is that this might end with a bad incentive structure that I think would lead to bad quality: it would push you to write the kind of articles that everyone wants to click on/pay for. So mostly clickbait. Emotional content instead of factual one. It's unlikely that this could finance the long-term, high-quality investigative journalism that actually defines high quality journals.
    - cjs_ac 2y ago
      Newspapers have been dealing with this issue since the nineteenth century. I don't know how things work where you are in the world, but in the UK and Australia, newspapers are separated into broadsheets which have better-quality journalism and tabloids which are clickbait nonsense. (The terms come from the paper sizes they used to be printed on.) In the UK, the tabloids are further divided by the colours of their mastheads: the black-tops are less sensational; the red-tops are more sensational.
    - protocolture 2y ago
      Seems like thats how the market is currently structured. Most of those paywalled sites are already dishing out endless streams of emotive bs. What I want, is the ability to not pay a subscription that includes the emotive bs, but to read only the content I want.
  - etc-hosts 2y ago
    It is the opinion of every musical artist that even extremely popular artists on Spotify make enough to buy a few boxes of graham crackers.
    - protocolture 2y ago
protocolture 2y ago
They choose to make the content available to parties that I can impersonate. I respect their decision by impersonating them.
- didntcheck 2y ago
  You could likely swindle many physical stores out of wares by social engineering too, but making material gains by deception is known as "fraud"
  - protocolture 2y ago
    Cool. I could also build a rocket and go to the moon but thats not really the topic here.
CaptainFever 2y ago
This uses a couple of classic fallacies: 1. Stop comparing digital products (data) to physical products (food). 2. Don't use the word "take", nothing is taken, only copied. 3. "They get to choose how the world sees their creation" Not necessarily. This is a pretty big assumption that lies at the heart of the conflict between the rights of the author and the rights of the public.
- tgv 2y ago
  > 1. Stop comparing digital products (data) to physical products (food). That's not a fallacy. Perhaps the way they are compared is wrong, but they can be compared. If you want an example: e-books vs books, mp3s vs cds, Netflix vs DVDs, online banking vs your local branch office. > 2. Don't use the word "take", nothing is taken, only copied. You do take it, except when you intend take to mean "remove from a place." You can take a nap, you can take a breath, etc. > 3. ... This is a pretty big assumption Copyright owners do have the right to restrict access, legally and morally, although the latter is IMO, of course.
didntcheck 2y ago
Yes. It's funny how people will claim they only block ads because they allegedly want to pay for good content, but cannot, or claim that piracy is just a service problem. Yet when asked to put their money where their mouth is they instead just continue to openly try and get stuff for free. It's pure entitlement and disrespect for other's labor As for the "I can; therefore I will" justifications: I can steal from my local corner shop. It's very unlikely they'd catch me. Yet I do not
rmbyrro 2y ago
> They get to choose how the world sees their creation Then they should not publicize it. They could license only to Google, but Google isn't interested. Instead, publishers need to publicize, which is... expected? Once they publicize, they can't claim the public is not allowed to read. It's like sharing a printed newspaper with my friends. Publishers shouldn't be able to prevent it.
- bruce511 2y ago
  Im not sure I buy this arguments. Lots of things are publicized and then need to be paid for. Like movies. Or music. Or books etc.

Daneel_ 2y ago

I agree with you. Where the gap lies for me is that I can’t just buy one meal, I have to sign up for the yearly meal plan even if I just want one meal. A few years ago I tracked how many times I visited some of the various paywalls sites for their articles, and typically it was between 5-10 times per year. One was 30, so I paid for a subscription to them, but I can’t justify several dozens of dollars for 5 articles on many other sites. If I can’t access their content because a bypass doesn’t work then so be it, however I wasn’t willing to pay for that content either. I feel like it’s the classic misconception regarding piracy by the movie industry - I wasn’t willing to pay money for it in the first place, so it’s not lost revenue (unfortunately). I was actually discussing this overall problem with my wife the other day, and I came to the conclusion that I basically want a “Netflix” but for news - I subscribe to one place and I get access to a whole range of publications. That’s worth it to me. I very much don’t see it happening though, sadly.

protocolture 2y ago
Really someone just needs to spotify this shit. Scrape everything and hand out pennies based on who attracted what eyesballs.
- querez 2y ago
  The problem is that this might end with a bad incentive structure that I think would lead to bad quality: it would push you to write the kind of articles that everyone wants to click on/pay for. So mostly clickbait. Emotional content instead of factual one. It's unlikely that this could finance the long-term, high-quality investigative journalism that actually defines high quality journals.
  - cjs_ac 2y ago
    Newspapers have been dealing with this issue since the nineteenth century. I don't know how things work where you are in the world, but in the UK and Australia, newspapers are separated into broadsheets which have better-quality journalism and tabloids which are clickbait nonsense. (The terms come from the paper sizes they used to be printed on.) In the UK, the tabloids are further divided by the colours of their mastheads: the black-tops are less sensational; the red-tops are more sensational.
  - protocolture 2y ago
    Seems like thats how the market is currently structured. Most of those paywalled sites are already dishing out endless streams of emotive bs. What I want, is the ability to not pay a subscription that includes the emotive bs, but to read only the content I want.
- etc-hosts 2y ago
  It is the opinion of every musical artist that even extremely popular artists on Spotify make enough to buy a few boxes of graham crackers.
  - protocolture 2y ago

protocolture 2y ago

They choose to make the content available to parties that I can impersonate. I respect their decision by impersonating them.

didntcheck 2y ago
You could likely swindle many physical stores out of wares by social engineering too, but making material gains by deception is known as "fraud"
- protocolture 2y ago
  Cool. I could also build a rocket and go to the moon but thats not really the topic here.

CaptainFever 2y ago

This uses a couple of classic fallacies: 1. Stop comparing digital products (data) to physical products (food). 2. Don't use the word "take", nothing is taken, only copied. 3. "They get to choose how the world sees their creation" Not necessarily. This is a pretty big assumption that lies at the heart of the conflict between the rights of the author and the rights of the public.

tgv 2y ago
> 1. Stop comparing digital products (data) to physical products (food). That's not a fallacy. Perhaps the way they are compared is wrong, but they can be compared. If you want an example: e-books vs books, mp3s vs cds, Netflix vs DVDs, online banking vs your local branch office. > 2. Don't use the word "take", nothing is taken, only copied. You do take it, except when you intend take to mean "remove from a place." You can take a nap, you can take a breath, etc. > 3. ... This is a pretty big assumption Copyright owners do have the right to restrict access, legally and morally, although the latter is IMO, of course.

didntcheck 2y ago

Yes. It's funny how people will claim they only block ads because they allegedly want to pay for good content, but cannot, or claim that piracy is just a service problem. Yet when asked to put their money where their mouth is they instead just continue to openly try and get stuff for free. It's pure entitlement and disrespect for other's labor As for the "I can; therefore I will" justifications: I can steal from my local corner shop. It's very unlikely they'd catch me. Yet I do not

rmbyrro 2y ago

> They get to choose how the world sees their creation Then they should not publicize it. They could license only to Google, but Google isn't interested. Instead, publishers need to publicize, which is... expected? Once they publicize, they can't claim the public is not allowed to read. It's like sharing a printed newspaper with my friends. Publishers shouldn't be able to prevent it.

bruce511 2y ago
Im not sure I buy this arguments. Lots of things are publicized and then need to be paid for. Like movies. Or music. Or books etc.