5 ms·

> I feel that both extensions are wrong. I feel that discriminating based on referrer is wrong. Or IP address. Or geographic location. Or user agent. More tha

by maratd 11y ago

> I feel that both extensions are wrong. I feel that discriminating based on referrer is wrong. Or IP address. Or geographic location. Or user agent. More than that, discriminating based on those things is really flimsy. A website should provide the same content regardless of what browser you're using or where you're coming from.

eli 11y ago
I'm not saying I think the WSJ's paywall is a good idea (I don't), but if they want to try to make money to support their (largely very good) journalism that way, I don't think it's very nice for someone else to publish a tool that automatically subverts the paywall for countless other users.
- bdcravens 11y ago
  This tool saves the 3 seconds it takes to highlight the article title, 'Search Google for ...', and click the link in the search results.
  - eli 11y ago
    I don't follow. Would using the plugin be less acceptable if the paywall were harder to get around?
    - esrauch 11y ago
      Yes, definitely.
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
    - maratd 11y ago
      > Would using the plugin be less acceptable if the paywall were harder to get around? I don't see the plugin as getting around their paywall. I see it as getting around moronic web development. For example, if a site has unbelievably intrusive advertising and I install an ad blocker. Or a site pops up a register for our newsletter modal and it's blocking the content and there's no way to close it ... so I open up the console and remove the dom node entirely so I can see the article. In other words, stupid shit that 99.9% of people don't know how to get around, but a web developer can get around in a few seconds. That's not hacking or bypassing anything, that's just moronic web development. If you want to put up a paywall, that's fine. A wall is a wall. If you make a hole in the wall on purpose and people walk through that hole, don't blame the people ... blame the wall.
ikeboy 11y ago
Or how much you're paying?
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

by maratd 11y ago

eli 11y ago

I'm not saying I think the WSJ's paywall is a good idea (I don't), but if they want to try to make money to support their (largely very good) journalism that way, I don't think it's very nice for someone else to publish a tool that automatically subverts the paywall for countless other users.

bdcravens 11y ago
This tool saves the 3 seconds it takes to highlight the article title, 'Search Google for ...', and click the link in the search results.
- eli 11y ago
  I don't follow. Would using the plugin be less acceptable if the paywall were harder to get around?
  - esrauch 11y ago
    Yes, definitely.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
  - maratd 11y ago
    > Would using the plugin be less acceptable if the paywall were harder to get around? I don't see the plugin as getting around their paywall. I see it as getting around moronic web development. For example, if a site has unbelievably intrusive advertising and I install an ad blocker. Or a site pops up a register for our newsletter modal and it's blocking the content and there's no way to close it ... so I open up the console and remove the dom node entirely so I can see the article. In other words, stupid shit that 99.9% of people don't know how to get around, but a web developer can get around in a few seconds. That's not hacking or bypassing anything, that's just moronic web development. If you want to put up a paywall, that's fine. A wall is a wall. If you make a hole in the wall on purpose and people walk through that hole, don't blame the people ... blame the wall.

ikeboy 11y ago

Or how much you're paying?

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]