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

Mozilla hit with takedown request for anti-paywall addons

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 405 posts

Re: Mozilla hit with takedown request for anti-paywall addons

#91

Post by decasteve »

matt4077 wrote: post #18
decasteve wrote: post #5

This breaks the social contract of the web. If you publish on the web (over HTTP) using HTML (with or without css+js) then you respect the concept of a User-Agent that renders the content on behalf of the user. If you wish to get around this then create another file format and protocol and application/plugin to do so — one that enforces the DRM for the owner. Don’t take agency away from User-Agent.

There’s also a social contract about respect for the law. It’s arguably much older. It involves aspects like “following the spirit of the law”. Also “technical ability is not the same as permission”. It’s why the old shopkeeper’s waning ability to see is no license for you from the produce displayed outside. (This is mostly to show that I, too, can argue with invented “contracts”).

If you’re selling something called wood, and I use a saw to cut it, I expect it to work because I paid for wood. That’s the implied contract. If the person who sells the wood puts some foreign substance in it to circumvent my saw I should not get in trouble for finding another way to cut it.

I pay for my internet connection and I expect others who make use of the same network to follow its protocols. I expect HTTP to work as HTTP. If a bad network node chooses to circumvent how it works and I find a way around their circumvention then I should not be punished. On the other hand, if I republish and break copyright it is an entirely different matter.

Re: Mozilla hit with takedown request for anti-paywall addons

#92

Post by daveFNbuck »

shaki-dora wrote: post #45
totfz wrote: post #17

This would not be a problem if Mozilla had sided with users for once and allowed us to install xpi extensions from outside their app store.

[flagged]

I don't think current trends indicate hard paywalls as the future. Instead, it looks like news organizations are going to publish exclusively into walled gardens like FB.

Re: Mozilla hit with takedown request for anti-paywall addons

#93

Post by daveFNbuck »

woah wrote: post #31
trollied wrote: post #16

Just a tangent for you all - does anyone envisage a 2nd parallel internet emerging? Not tor-like, an actual completely separate network?

That’s quite a huge tangent. Why? And what could it possibly have to do with the article?

It seems very related to me. This is another thing we're no longer allowed to do on the current internet. Maybe people enough people would rather build a new internet than pay for digital goods.

Re: Mozilla hit with takedown request for anti-paywall addons

#94

Post by dooglius »

betterunix2 wrote: post #82
dooglius wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, for one thing, it would make a takedown request like this impossible to enforce.

No, it would mean that the takedown request is satisfied by the Mozilla revoking signatures on the addons, something which the signer can always do (e.g. at a minimum they can push a new signature key and re-sign all the other addons).

Good point. Is there any legal precedent (in the US) for forcing signature revocation though? It seems to run up against the first amendment since Mozilla would essentially be making a statement that "the addon with hash 1234 does not contain malware", which should be legally protected speech.

Re: Mozilla hit with takedown request for anti-paywall addons

#95

Post by chiefalchemist »

I'm not a lawyer. I don't know the particulars of the law. But I presume "blocking", as in the ads are effectively removed, is key. Instead of blocking them, would hiding them, via a div with a higher z-index? Mind you, that doesn't prevent the tracking. But there are other tools for that.

I agree. Ads suck. Maybe there's a legal loophole to avoid them some other way?

Re: Mozilla hit with takedown request for anti-paywall addons

#96

Post by abc-xyz »

IfOnlyYouKnew wrote: post #90
abc-xyz wrote: post #84

[flagged]

That's sorta like pushing a drowning swimmer down to stop them thrashing around. I mean... it is going to work. Sort of. I also feel sorry for the terrible burden that http requests seem to be for you. Meanwhile, large swaths of the richest nations no longer have local news. I guess it's a wash...

God forbid I care about the privacy of those who're technically incapable of protecting themselves from these evil practices.

Edit: as for local publishers, I personally believe they should be government funded and non-profit, but if I had to choose between any publisher (local or otherwise) thriving while violating people's privacy, or not existing at all, then I would surely wish for the latter, and I would hope everyone felt the same way.

Re: Mozilla hit with takedown request for anti-paywall addons

#97

Post by betterunix2 »

shaki-dora wrote: post #45
totfz wrote: post #17

This would not be a problem if Mozilla had sided with users for once and allowed us to install xpi extensions from outside their app store.

[flagged]

Why would it be wrong for a publisher to only allow subscribers to read articles? If that is the business model that works in the 21st century then publishers should absolutely do it.

The bigger question is whether or not users should only be allowed to run software the neatly aligns with the publishers' business plans (and those of other corporations -- video game companies, business software vendors, etc.). Personally, I think business plans should be based on reality and not based on courts ordering people to pretend that reality is something else. In this case it is not even hard for publishers to enforce their paywalls -- they can simply refuse to serve page content before the payment is made, instead of just asking the browser to not render the content (which is like handing someone a newspaper and then saying, "don't read anything until you pay!").

Re: Mozilla hit with takedown request for anti-paywall addons

#98

Post by realthing »

maxerickson wrote: post #6
realthing wrote: post #2

here we go -- gearing up to the decade of censorship 2020 and beyond . . . between this and the EU link sharing tax, I am beginning to wonder if the internet really is the last bastion to freedom of speech

Of course it isn't any different in that respect (control by state actors) than any other communication medium. Expecting otherwise is odd.

No it isnt. The whole point of the internet is that it exists apart from nations law. its in the name - world wide web.

Re: Mozilla hit with takedown request for anti-paywall addons

#99

Post by zcid »

shaki-dora wrote: post #63
monochromatic wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their business model has been broken for years. It’s not incumbent on me to help them survive.

Yes, but considering you seem to be keen on reading their content: have you considered that their survival may, just possibly, be in your interest ?

If he felt that way, he would probably have a subscription. I will reiterate what several other posters have said: it's up to publications like WSJ to ensure their content isn't available to unauthorized users. If they're sending content out, they should not be upset that it's being consumed.

Re: Mozilla hit with takedown request for anti-paywall addons

#100

Post by bovermyer »

Paywalls exist as a solution to the problem of "how do journalists and other content producers get paid for their work?"

Anti-paywall addons are an attempt to get something that isn't intended to be free for free.

Ignoring the legality of this for a moment, let's consider: is this moral?

Post reply on HN