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

181–190 of 405 posts

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

#181

Post by alexandernst »

m52go wrote: post #173
_em6m wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okey. So how about respecting the right of those who use paywalls to get money for the content they create? Just because something is on the internet doesn't give you the holly right of getting it for free.

> Just because something is on the internet doesn't give you the holly right of getting it for free. Correct. Others have the holy right to charge, and I have the holy right to try getting around it.

Yeah. That's the point. I won't go into the subject of discussing if that is legal or not, but for sure it's not ethical.

That said, you're free to try to get around easy "protections", Mozilla is free to take down your methods for doing that.

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

#182

Post by Spivak »

betterunix2 wrote: post #97
shaki-dora wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[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.). Persona…

Or just put the content behind a login page you can actually enforce a free limit.

"But that doesn't work because there's too much friction making users create an account"

Well then you're going to have to live with people who go around your shadow account system.

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

#183

Post by mike22223333 »

giornogiovanna wrote: post #62

This extension just seems to strip tracking data and pretend to be a Google bot. It baffles me that this is somehow concerning enough to be taken down. And anyway, isn't making exemptions for Google's robots sort-of against their policy? https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/66355

There are exceptions for paywalls.

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

#184

Post by solatic »

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.

Precisely this. Website operators who wish to establish effective paywalls with publicly indexed content need a way to cryptographically authenticate web crawlers. That means working with search engines to establish a standard for registering and authenticating authorized crawlers.

If Google isn't interested in such a standard (because it reduces the quality of open search results) then that's the publishers' problem, not Google's or users'.

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

#185

Post by Spivak »

daveFNbuck wrote: post #92
shaki-dora wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[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.

Which outside of admitting the complete dependence of news on social distribution platforms is pretty much what journalists actually want -- a low-friction account you can use to enforce free tiers.

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

#186

Post by Spivak »

betterunix2 wrote: post #80
vbezhenar wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Firefox is just a platform to run addons, like Windows is OS to run programs. Do you think that Microsoft should curate software allowed for users to run?

IANAL but my perspective has been that the courts care more about your ability to control what runs on a "platform" than about who hosts what. So if Firefox in its default configuration will only run addons that Mozilla approves, then the courts might not care about where the addon is hosted or how users technically receive it, and could just order Mozilla not to sign the addon. My personal opinion is that curation i…

Wouldn't Mozilla just have to say that any add-on that isn't malware is eligible to be signed and that it's a security feature, not a tool for curation of content.

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

#187

Post by m52go »

alexandernst wrote: post #181
m52go wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Just because something is on the internet doesn't give you the holly right of getting it for free. Correct. Others have the holy right to charge, and I have the holy right to try getting around it.

Yeah. That's the point. I won't go into the subject of discussing if that is legal or not, but for sure it's not ethical. That said, you're free to try to get around easy "protections", Mozilla is free to take down your methods for doing that.

You could make moral arguments for and against the companies seeking these protections and even Mozilla itself.

Ultimately businesses will always ruthlessly try to make more money, and software will ruthlessly seek a more efficient user experience.

Often these objective clash. Spotify is the obvious example that seemed to offer a solution in the music space. But we have yet to discover such a solution in online publishing.

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

#188

Post by bypasspaywalls »

nextgens wrote: post #114

I am the author of that add-on ... what would you do in my shoes ? - provide an XPI (that will only benefit the few since the side-loading process is made awkwarder at every point release) ? - fight it ? If so, on what grounds and how ? - something else ?

[dead]

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

#189

Post by Spivak »

crankylinuxuser wrote: post #87
dralley wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not convinced this is a worse evil than the previous situation, which was that any and every crapware installer injected browser plugins/toolbars without consent.

Caveat emptor is always better than a petty dictatorship. And that's what Moz is being these days; emulating the Apple App model, the Windows Phone app model, and other obnoxious "you have to ask us permission to do stuff on your device" rules. Id rather take toolbar hell. We'd have more functionality overall.

Of course you would rather take the toolbar hell. Because you're not the one who will be installing random toolbars. This is really no different than saying: "I'd prefer that when a company that has to make a decision that affects millions of users they go with the option that's best for me"

What's somehow worse is that you can literally have your cake and eat it too -- just install Dev or Nightly, you're exactly the advanced user those branches are targeting.

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

#190

Post by Spivak »

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.

This view is bonkers. You can still install extensions outside AMO. And you can install unsigned extensions in Dev and Nightly.

Is changing your release branch really that much more of a burden than flipping a preference?

Post reply on HN