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

171–180 of 345 posts

Re: The Wall Street Journal to Close Google Loophole Entirely

#171

Post by bilkow »

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...

Does it work by checking the referrer? Maybe you can workaround by configuring a browser add-on (like RefControl) to just send facebook.com as a referrer while on WSJ.

Re: The Wall Street Journal to Close Google Loophole Entirely

#172

Post by tomjen3 »

downandout wrote: post #132

The 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.

What I don't get is that they could just leave the first two paragraphs and let every see that, then require you to subscribe for more - google would accept that and they would still show up in search, right?

Re: The Wall Street Journal to Close Google Loophole Entirely

#174

Post by dzhiurgis »

azag0 wrote: post #143
abtinf wrote: post #106

Earlier 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…

The publishers want their subscribers to ADVERTISE the stuff they they pay for.

By definition sharing means giving it away for free.

Re: The Wall Street Journal to Close Google Loophole Entirely

#175

Post by stop_thief »

monochromatic wrote: post #164
stop_thief wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Theft != copyright infringement.

Ah, that tired old linguistic argument that completely misses the point.

Re: The Wall Street Journal to Close Google Loophole Entirely

#177

Post by dzhiurgis »

cgriswald wrote: post #101
leereeves wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For me, subscriptions are a deal breaker. Whenever possible, I avoid signing up for a recurring fee for something I only use occasionally.

For me, the deal breaker is that even with a subscription I am usually saddled with consuming the content the way they want me to and they only want me to consume it that way so they can still advertise to me.

Content providers are fragmented, you can't access it while abroad, you can't access it on additional device, you cannot copy it, you are subjected to fair use limitations, you must latest version of this insecure software to access the content...

Re: The Wall Street Journal to Close Google Loophole Entirely

#178

Post by tyingq »

tomjen3 wrote: post #172
downandout wrote: post #132

The 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.

What I don't get is that they could just leave the first two paragraphs and let every see that, then require you to subscribe for more - google would accept that and they would still show up in search, right?

They could, but then only those two paragraphs would be indexed. That would make the content less rich, less relevant, so it wouldn't rank as high.

That's for the normal organic search results. I don't know the policy for showing up in Google news and the carousel. I suspect it wouldn't be allowed.

Edit: You can be subscription-only and be in Google news, but you have to show the same limited snippet to both Google and end users. And you get 'tagged' in the UI as subscription only. https://support.google.com/news/publisher/answer/40543?hl=en

Re: The Wall Street Journal to Close Google Loophole Entirely

#179

Post by mirimir »

azag0 wrote: post #103
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...

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.

I'd be happy to pay, under these conditions: 1) payment per article, at prices comparable to aggregate ad income; and 2) payments accepted via Bitcoin, or other methods which can be anonymized.

Re: The Wall Street Journal to Close Google Loophole Entirely

#180

Post by beefield »

kaspiCZ wrote: post #158
rhaps0dy wrote: post #105

Earlier 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.

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?

Rethink my business model?
Post reply on HN