Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Wall Street Journal to Close Google Loophole Entirely

digiday.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 345 posts

Re: The Wall Street Journal to Close Google Loophole Entirely

#61

Post by oconnore »

ikeboy wrote: post #30
ctrl_freak wrote: post #28

If anyone's looking for another workaround, the article actually hints at the solution: Facebook's l.php redirect that it uses when you click on a link shared through the platform. It functions similarly to the Google redirect, and you don't even need a Facebook account for it to work. E.g. https://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=https://www.wsj.com/article...

I would give you HN gold if it existed (now we just need a bookmarklet/extension to automate this). Do we know that this will still work on Monday? Maybe this will also be closed and you'll need a special link?

Instead of buying internet points for someone who figured out a little hack to access journalism, maybe you could instead pay for journalism?

Re: The Wall Street Journal to Close Google Loophole Entirely

#62

Post by greglindahl »

sfritz wrote: post #60
dankohn1 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is awesome. Just for folks who aren't clear how to create a bookmarklet: Create a bookmark of any page, by going to a URL such as https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB122878081364889613 (note that only the top part of the page loads) and enter Cmd (or Ctrl) D. Now Save the bookmark to your bookmark bar. Find the bookmark, right click, and replace the WSJ URL with the javascript URL in the parent post. Save and now tes…

I may be misunderstanding your instructions, but I think the intended use (in Chrome, at least) is to highlight the javascript and drag it to your bookmarks bar. This creates a bookmark that executes the javascript, which you can click to unblock the WSJ article you're currently viewing by redirecting the current page through Facebook. Another useful bookmarklet for deleting annoying DOM elements: javascript:(functio…

Same thing for firefox. And you can right-click the bookmarklet to edit its properties and make a nice name.

Re: The Wall Street Journal to Close Google Loophole Entirely

#63

Post by Animats »

grzm wrote: post #21
Animats wrote: post #20

Paywalls have been tightening up recently. The Washington Post now has stronger anti-ad-blocking. So do the Chicago Tribune and the Los Angeles Times. The New York Times is still accessible. It's a concern that the newspapers which have actual reporters in the field are disappearing behind paywalls.

Actual reporters need to be paid :) The idea of free access to news is relatively recent, since wide-spread web access. Prior to that, people paid for subscriptions, or bought papers at new stands or from boxes. Sure, people might share a few papers at the office or at a restaurant, but having access like we've had for the past 20 years or so is pretty remarkable. I think it's becoming increasingly clear that purely…

The idea of free access to news is relatively recent, since wide-spread web access.

Not really. Radio. TV.

Re: The Wall Street Journal to Close Google Loophole Entirely

#64

Post by tonyedgecombe »

the_duke wrote: post #6

Sadly for most newspapers, WSJ is in a special position. It has the highest circulation of any paper in the US, and it has a target audience that really doesn't mind paying. A paywall wouldn't work out well for many others.

I suspect most of the others would be better just posting teaser material on the web and trying to make the rest up in the paper edition.

Re: The Wall Street Journal to Close Google Loophole Entirely

#65

Post by colanderman »

pzh wrote: post #58
raldi wrote: post #56

Has any publisher tried out a paywall along the lines of the following? "Hey, you've spent 29 hours so far this year reading 119 articles. Suggested donation: $62"

The Guardian is doing something similar but without tracking the hours spent. They just say "Hey, we see you spend a lot of time around here. Why don't you help us out a bit so we can stay afloat?"

The Guardian's tactic actually got me to pay for news for the first time in my life. For some reason I'm really turned off to the idea of buying a ~$100 subscription to a single paper, but I'll gladly toss $25 here or there in response to good journalism.

Re: The Wall Street Journal to Close Google Loophole Entirely

#66

Post by grzm »

Animats wrote: post #63
grzm wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actual reporters need to be paid :) The idea of free access to news is relatively recent, since wide-spread web access. Prior to that, people paid for subscriptions, or bought papers at new stands or from boxes. Sure, people might share a few papers at the office or at a restaurant, but having access like we've had for the past 20 years or so is pretty remarkable. I think it's becoming increasingly clear that purely…

The idea of free access to news is relatively recent, since wide-spread web access. Not really. Radio. TV.

Both of which are commercial-supported and transient. Print news is a different beast.

Re: The Wall Street Journal to Close Google Loophole Entirely

#67

Post by brokenmasonjars »

wtf_is_up wrote: post #36
pascalxus wrote: post #4

First of all, I think it's great that journalists can get compensated for their work. but, strictly speaking as a consumer, I must say their paywall is completely out of touch with the way I want to pay for news consumption. I don't mind paying 5c or even 10c per article, but I'm certainly not going to sign up to pay 120$ for 6 months, if I'm only going to read 1 or 2 articles here and there. but since they've done i…

If you're a student, WSJ has a plan for $50/yr.

Always worth checking the school library database first as it might be available for free (well, 'free'... not including tuition..)

Re: The Wall Street Journal to Close Google Loophole Entirely

#68

Post by DannyBee »

sbierwagen wrote: post #50
teej wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The amount you want to pay for news is not anywhere close to the value it is providing you or that they make from ad revenue.

Let's say you're standing in a field strewn with gold bars. A man comes up to you and offers to sell you a gold bar for $400,000. You point out that you are standing among hundreds of gold bars, all of them free for the taking. He points out that it was a lot of hard work extracting gold from thousands of tons of ore, casting it, assaying it, etc. Just because something cost a lot to make, doesn't mean it's worth a l…

Ah, yes, this is also why the US has no sweat of the brow doctrine, with the prime example being "trying to copyright a phone book".

Re: The Wall Street Journal to Close Google Loophole Entirely

#69

Post by perlpimp »

raldi wrote: post #56

Has any publisher tried out a paywall along the lines of the following? "Hey, you've spent 29 hours so far this year reading 119 articles. Suggested donation: $62"

I am just wondering what would be equivalent to scanning some articles not reading them, conflating two destroys potential value to offer this proposition. I don't often read articles but I want to see if its worth reading. So it is a bit of a hardsell on part of wsj, but they do cater to more of the affluent public so my guess they stand to gain more from playing hardball with people who do have more disposable income than rest of the internet public.

Re: The Wall Street Journal to Close Google Loophole Entirely

#70

Post by perlpimp »

pascalxus wrote: post #4

First of all, I think it's great that journalists can get compensated for their work. but, strictly speaking as a consumer, I must say their paywall is completely out of touch with the way I want to pay for news consumption. I don't mind paying 5c or even 10c per article, but I'm certainly not going to sign up to pay 120$ for 6 months, if I'm only going to read 1 or 2 articles here and there. but since they've done i…

I totally agree with you, it would also make me read the article worth the money spent. As a company they must pay salaries of established staff, that sort of stands at odds with per article revenue. Its like this, if business hires people for at least 6months they ought to make an effort to get those people paid and projecting income from penny articles can be substantially difficult.
Post reply on HN