I would pay if I don't fear them. They constantly trying to push a propogenda, and you have to pay for it is indigestible
The Wall Street Journal to Close Google Loophole Entirely
151–160 of 345 posts
Re: The Wall Street Journal to Close Google Loophole Entirely
#152If 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?
It's working right now
Re: The Wall Street Journal to Close Google Loophole Entirely
#153Earlier quoted context omitted.
Instead of buying internet points for someone who figured out a little hack to access journalism, maybe you could instead pay for journalism?
A noble thought. My problem comes not from the fact that I don't want to pay but rather from the fact that it's super annoying. What if my browser could just say "article will be 25 cents?" and I could say y/n? But instead, I have to sign up for a service, hand over my credit card, blah blah, and now you've wasted enough of my time that it was worth just me stealing it. I'm pretty convinced it's just aUX thing.
There's already a system for selling ad space, based on tracking data and real-time bidding. Why would it be so hard to use the same sort of system for paid access, replacing ad resellers with readers?
Re: The Wall Street Journal to Close Google Loophole Entirely
#154The larger problem here is that unless they plan to have their Google search results all say "click here to pay" or similar, this entire scheme violates Google's cloaking policy and should result in their being deindexed. This has traditionally been the entire reason that sites offered this workaround - it wasn't out of the goodness of their hearts. Here's hoping Google actually enforces their policy.
If history is any guide, they absolutely will.
Google doesn't want people having a bad experience on Google which would drive them to consider any other source for search. If a search turns up an article and preview and a click-through doesn't show the same content, Google users will be annoyed, which will drive Google to act.
Google's anti-cloaking policy, while presented as a benefit for users [which it is], is strongly in Google's best interest to enforce as well.
Re: The Wall Street Journal to Close Google Loophole Entirely
#155Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the Journal also started letting people read for free links that are shared on social media by subscribers and staffers. Because the publisher explicitly allows it.
No. The publisher wants their subscribers to be able to share the stuff they pay for with other people. If you use that feature to read for free any content they publish, you misuse it. Now, I am very much against any DRM, I don't even really believe that intellectual property should be protected by law, but I believe that content creators have legitimate (but not necessarily legal) right to be paid for their content…
Don't believe IP should be protected? So every single author out there should not get paid? If their content isn't protected, they it's illogical to suggest they should also get paid. Anyone could reproduce that content and redistribute it. That's ludicrous. Film crews ought not be paid? Because if they can't sell their work, then what are they supposed to eat while making movies? Without IP protection, you no longer have new medicines. If the answer is "the government," then the question is -- where does the tax money come from to pay for it? If you wiped out IP law, you'd destroy a significant portion of the economy. The only people that would make any money would be those that control land or raw materials. Innovation would disappear.
Re: The Wall Street Journal to Close Google Loophole Entirely
#156Earlier quoted context omitted.
How come this isn't culturally perceived in the same way as not paying for software or movies or music? I've read various reasons why people don't want to pay. That's fine. But then simply don't read it.
> How come this isn't culturally perceived in the same way as not paying for software or movies or music? Perhaps it is? I've almost never had anyone remark that I was doing something bad when not paying for a software or movie or music.
Well it is bad. You're basically a thief, no matter how you try to justify it to yourself.
Really, you should be ashamed, rather than nonchalantly unconcerned about your behaviour.
Re: The Wall Street Journal to Close Google Loophole Entirely
#157If 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...
The only downside with this is that facebook gets a small amount of data about your browsing habbits.
It's the same data that Google was getting.
Also, I think Facebook (and Twitter, and others) already have a Share button on all WSJ articles that would inform them when you visit that page.
Re: The Wall Street Journal to Close Google Loophole Entirely
#158Earlier quoted context omitted.
How come this isn't culturally perceived in the same way as not paying for software or movies or music? I've read various reasons why people don't want to pay. That's fine. But then simply don't read it.
> How come this isn't culturally perceived in the same way as not paying for software or movies or music? Perhaps it is? I've almost never had anyone remark that I was doing something bad when not paying for a software or movie or music.
Let's pretend you developed a piece of software you want to sell. People download it without paying you. What do you do in that case?
Re: The Wall Street Journal to Close Google Loophole Entirely
#159First 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…
So 15 minutes of entertainment time to you (the time spent consuming a WSJ article) is worth 5 or 10 cents? Imagine if you were compensated at the same rate for your work. I suggest you try to find a substitute for those entertainment pennies. If you can, and that item is "free", good for you. But I doubt 5 or 10 cents gets you much.
If my work could be simultaneously consumed by millions of people and they all wanted to pay 5 or 10 cents, I'd be totally ok with that.
Re: The Wall Street Journal to Close Google Loophole Entirely
#160Earlier quoted context omitted.
> How come this isn't culturally perceived in the same way as not paying for software or movies or music? Perhaps it is? I've almost never had anyone remark that I was doing something bad when not paying for a software or movie or music.
Well it is bad. You're basically a thief, no matter how you try to justify it to yourself. Really, you should be ashamed, rather than nonchalantly unconcerned about your behaviour.
You have to care to be ashamed.