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

231–240 of 405 posts

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

#231

Post by mindslight »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #211
PyroLagus wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, Linux and friends aren't much better in that regard. Permission management for locally running programs is pretty much poor by default in all major operating systems. SELinux and AppArmor for Linux improve on the situation, but they're usually not the default unless you're using Fedora, and even there, it might need some extra configuration. I'm looking forward to capability-based systems with microkernel…

> To be fair, Linux and friends aren't much better in that regard. Linux gets there a different way. The standard way to install applications is from the package manager and essentially all of the applications in there are trustworthy (because they're all open source and if they did anything seriously user-hostile, someone would fork it and that version would be the one in the package manager). Meanwhile the package…

Package managers are exactly the centralized "app store" model, and there have been plenty of periods where users have had to add third party repositories to get basic functionality (DeCSS, video codecs, ZFS, etc).

The difference is that Linux repositories are less noteworthy to attack, have a more distributed culture not ruled by capitulating lawyers, and can actually jurisdiction shop.

The ultimate problem is a lack of a cross-software security model of the OSs, Linux included. User-based isolation is cool and all, but orthogonal to the modern world [0]. For decades we've been continually looking for better ways of isolating local apps, while also rejecting centralized control. We keep looking, while centralization keeps ratcheting.

I'm still hopeful that a well done capability (handle-based) system would go a long way, but not fully solve it. Unfortunately that means shedding off POSIX/LSB rather than duplicating the entire monolithic OS environment for every security context.

[0] Where say even a local LAN IP address is security-critical information!

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

#232

Post by Confusion »

Confusion wrote: post #155
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

You are not allowed to circumvent paywalls, just like you are not allowed to circumvent locks, no matter how easy they are to circumvent. As far as I have always understood, you may publish a locksmithing guide, even an “entering your home when locked out” guide, but not a “how to commit burglary” guide.

Folks, you can downvote me, but that doesn’t make what I’m saying false. Look at the law cited in TFA.

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

#233

Post by MrsPeaches »

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?

One I remember is MaidSafe: https://maidsafe.net/

There is a website out there that has interviews with about a dozen people who are working on alternative ways of doing the internet. Shallow google isn't throwing anything up I'm afraid.

Edit: Not quite what I thought I remembered but here it is anyway:

https://redecentralize.org/interviews/

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

#234

Post by alexandernst »

austincheney wrote: post #224
_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. Why not?

The same reason why I can't just get your lawnmower even if it's visible, in your backyard.

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

#235

Post by dao- »

kingofhdds wrote: post #227
dao- wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You said "exactly because of choice of third-party addons" and that's what I'm questioning. I'm not questioning whether addons in general are important for a significant share of users.

Could you clarify your position please: do you think that "Significant part of FF's userbase decided in its favor exactly because of choice of third-party addons" is incorrect?

If by third-party you mean unsigned, then yes, I think that's incorrect.

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

#236

Post by m-p-3 »

IfOnlyYouKnew wrote: post #121
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 ?

Stop enabling the destruction of journalism? That's an entirely serious suggestion. I'm not arguing that what you're doing is illegal. I have all sorts of qualms with copyright and its enforcement myself. If I were "copyright czar", movies would get three years, and newspapers maybe a week. But if we wish for copyright-holders to respect the rights of internet users, it would seem to be a winning proposition to maybe…

Then these websites should block the ability of search engine crawlers from accessing their paywalled content, which is basically moving the content out of the clear web onto the deep web (which is not the dark web, there's a difference).

If they can't accept that compromise and not have these paywalled articles indexed, then the problem is on them.

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

#237

Post by dao- »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #225
dao- wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You said "exactly because of choice of third-party addons" and that's what I'm questioning. I'm not questioning whether addons in general are important for a significant share of users.

What you want to have is a trustworthy place where >99% of users can get >99% of software. You can have that -- look at Linux package managers -- without preventing side loading. And in fact that's necessary to prevent despotism. The people operating the repository want people to use it. They don't want them getting things from untrustworthy places. But if they can just prohibit that , they can be tyrants -- refusing…

I think Linux is quite a bit different. Firefox shares its space with applications that have the same privilege, making sideloading into Firefox much easier, especially on Windows. And then Linux is also niche enough as a consumer OS that it's just not as attractive for malware in the first place.

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

#238

Post by cabalamat »

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 ?

> provide an XPI (that will only benefit the few since the side-loading process is made awkwarder at every point release) ?

This add-on is the first XPI I have ever loaded. I didn't find it awkward to do; it is simply:

Tools -> Add-Ons -> Cog Icon -> Install add-on from file...

The only thing I found unintuitive was the cog icon.

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

#239

Post by jocoda »

sparkie wrote: post #216
bovermyer wrote: post #100

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?

Is it moral for content producers to sell users web browsing habits to advertisers without their explicit consent?

Whose morality?

You either enforce your morals or they don't apply.

Without a paywall access is free to all. Sites may pretend that there is some moral obligation that visitors have to switch off ad blockers, but that's only the site's opinion, clearly not one that others typically accept.

Build a paywall and sites can manage entry based on whatever conditions they wish. Users either log in for some received benefit or go away.

But put up a search engine bypass and they open up access and lose total control. Bypassers are unlikely to agree with the site's desires and viewpoint.

Sites either control access 100%, by login, IP, etc, and so enforce their particular morality or they have to accept that their world view is not shared by all.

Even should sites manage to get a legal framework to enforce this morality, those laws do not have global scope. Not yet anyway.

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

#240

Post by russdpale »

Koshkin wrote: post #158
tomp wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Criminals also just want to survive. That doesn't make their immoral business model legitimate.

Difference is, while we do want the publishers to survive as publishers , we do not want the criminals to survive as criminals .

But do we really want the publishers to survive?
Post reply on HN