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

321–330 of 345 posts

Re: The Wall Street Journal to Close Google Loophole Entirely

#321

Post by hadfgdasf »

freddyc wrote: post #318
tanderson92 wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about these two pieces published within about a week of each other? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/01/... https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/01/23/... You'll note that the two stories are directly contradictory. The claim made by the WaPo is stronger than Senator Sanders' and yet Senator Sanders received 4 Pinocchios for the claim. I also like FAIR's analysis of the Wa…

Thanks, I hadn't seen that before. I still value a lot of the work they did last year, but it's a great reminder to keep a critical eye on what I consume. Now, please don't tell me the WSJ and FT are guilty of the same offenses? I'm not sure I can handle that much disappointment in one day.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the WSJ is Rupert Murdoch's paper. Take a look at their editorial page.

In this case I think the WaPo fact-checker was unfair in handing out Pinocchios. Four Pinocchios should be reserved for bald-faced, baseless falsities. In this case, Bernie had a source, based directly off of research. The "fact checker" criticized the details, application, and methodology of these conclusions, and offered its own, completely speculative conclusion that the real number is lower. I'm not saying this didn't deserve a Pinocchio or two, but I do think it's a bad call. That doesn't make it worthless, but I do think it certainly undermines its credibility a bit.

Re: The Wall Street Journal to Close Google Loophole Entirely

#322

Post by hadfgdasf »

mattraibert wrote: post #186
oskarth wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I agree, it is probably a case of not being in their target market: - Average age: 40+ - Average household income: 250k+ - Average household net worth: 1.5m+ From http://www.wsjmediakit.com/files/uploads/201410/2016_WSJcom_... .

Here is a working link that contains all the the info parent cites: http://www.wsjmediakit.com/files/uploads/201410/WSJ.com%20Au... Also, this is the _actual_ audience not their _target_ audience.

I wager their print edition subscriber base is considerably wealthier.

Re: The Wall Street Journal to Close Google Loophole Entirely

#323

Post by hadfgdasf »

hacknat wrote: post #198
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.

Well, hear it now. I'm judging you.

crickets

Re: The Wall Street Journal to Close Google Loophole Entirely

#324

Post by skissane »

dredmorbius wrote: post #319
skissane wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google recommends using reverse DNS lookup to determine if a client claiming to be Googlebot is really from Google – https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/80553?hl=en It isn't hard for paywall website operators to use this to block Googlebot fakers. (Rather than doing a reverse DNS lookup on every request, you'd want to maintain a local cache of those results, so you only need to do DNS lookups on new client I…

DNS lookups are expensive at server scale. Bot traffic ranges from maybe a quarter to 80% of traffic, though googlebot was only a subset of that. Cheaper to look for Google ASNs.

> DNS lookups are expensive at server scale.

Even if you use a distributed in-memory cache to store the DNS lookup results? If User-Agent contains "Googlebot", then check for client IP in cache – if cached as "Google" continue, if cached as "Not Google" display error page. If client IP not in cache, do DNS lookup and then update cache – or, you could even let the request continue if there is a cache miss, and do the DNS lookup on another thread. That might let a Googlebot faker get a few requests through, but they'll be blocked very quickly unless they keep on changing IPs (something your average paywall bypasser will find hard.)

You don't need to consult the cache for every request, only for requests with User-Agent contains "Googlebot". (And any other bots you are choosing to let through your paywall, e.g. Bingbot.)

> Cheaper to look for Google ASNs.

How does one do that as an application developer? Do you need to speak to a BGP server?

Re: The Wall Street Journal to Close Google Loophole Entirely

#325

Post by k_lander »

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 would be perfectly fine with this. just give me a way to exclude wsj from my newsfeed and search results without me having to install a trusted browser extension

Re: The Wall Street Journal to Close Google Loophole Entirely

#326

Post by sneak »

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.

If they don't want people to read for free, the WSJ should simply not serve it.

We're free to send them any Referer headers we wish... in a request. It's up to them to reply however they wish.

Re: The Wall Street Journal to Close Google Loophole Entirely

#327

Post by bestnameever »

tanderson92 wrote: post #295
freddyc wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you say that? Their political coverage and some of their deep-dive investigative pieces have been top drawer IMO.

How about these two pieces published within about a week of each other? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/01/... https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/01/23/... You'll note that the two stories are directly contradictory. The claim made by the WaPo is stronger than Senator Sanders' and yet Senator Sanders received 4 Pinocchios for the claim. I also like FAIR's analysis of the Wa…

The second article in fact references the prior article and makes an argument that the writer is being over optimistic.

Re: The Wall Street Journal to Close Google Loophole Entirely

#328

Post by bestnameever »

tanderson92 wrote: post #295
freddyc wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you say that? Their political coverage and some of their deep-dive investigative pieces have been top drawer IMO.

How about these two pieces published within about a week of each other? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/01/... https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/01/23/... You'll note that the two stories are directly contradictory. The claim made by the WaPo is stronger than Senator Sanders' and yet Senator Sanders received 4 Pinocchios for the claim. I also like FAIR's analysis of the Wa…

The second article in fact references the prior article and makes an argument that the writer is being over optimistic.

Personally, I think it's refreshing to see that kind of dialog in one publication, especially on an issue as complicated as this.

Re: The Wall Street Journal to Close Google Loophole Entirely

#329

Post by nraynaud »

offa wrote: post #300
nraynaud wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's smart to pay to read stuff from a group that also gets money from advertisers. You're either the product or the customer, when in doubt you'll be the product. Real subscription journalism doesn't do advertising.

What 'real subscription journalism' big-name newspapers that don't do advertising can you name? I am honestly struggling to think of any.

Sorry, I'm French, so I can only cite you 2 French ones: Le Canard Enchainé (100 yo, no website) and Mediapart (pure web).

We are talking serious news: the first one discovered that a minister had sent 1500 Jews in a train during WWII, the second one has discovered the minister charged of tax collection had an undeclared bank account in Switzerland.

Re: The Wall Street Journal to Close Google Loophole Entirely

#330

Post by nraynaud »

dredmorbius wrote: post #317
nraynaud wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's smart to pay to read stuff from a group that also gets money from advertisers. You're either the product or the customer, when in doubt you'll be the product. Real subscription journalism doesn't do advertising.

Advertising-free journalism has a far higher price. Always has. Independence isn't cheap. https://archive.org/stream/commercialismjou00holtuoft#page/1...

Yes, and it needs to be that way, because they need to keep a treasure for the lawyers too.
Post reply on HN