161–170 of 246 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What did the publisher lose that he had before?
resources to transmit data over a network.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not quite understanding the logic here. Just because another customer (google) was given access, does that mean everyone should have it? Would you rather publishers give google private direct feeds to index?
> Just because another customer (google) was given access, does that mean everyone should have it? They didn't provide access to just another customer or Google -- they send the article text to EVERYONE in the HTML response. They are thus making that text publicly available. If they want to make content only available to certain individuals, that is literally what paywalls and authentication/authorization are for. In…
I'm having a hard time envisioning a scenario where giving Google exclusive data will be in any way good for content creators and site owners in the long term.
If we took it a step further and gave google private direct feeds from publishers, would you then be OK with the automatic moat around Google's services that would then be built? How about the one that formed from the private subscription data that you needed to feed to them for them to tailor their searches to your preferences? What if they started charging for search? Would you then go to another search engine that did not have the private content feeds and could not, by design, find those relevant paywalled results?
edit: Just to reiterate, I'm not defending the paywall practice (or breaking it, for that matter). I just see this practice pushing paywalls to be hard rather than soft.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Just because another customer (google) was given access, does that mean everyone should have it? They didn't provide access to just another customer or Google -- they send the article text to EVERYONE in the HTML response. They are thus making that text publicly available. If they want to make content only available to certain individuals, that is literally what paywalls and authentication/authorization are for. In…
This is the “but she was wearing a low cut top” argument.
I know I'll get downvoted for this but I feel like this stuff is pretty close to theft. I can understand justifying ad-blocking, arguing that you don't want to see it. So even though you're depriving them of revenue while consuming the product funded by it, there's at least an argument that you're only controlling what you see. But using tricks to get access to something not available to you without paying? This seem…
>but I feel like this stuff is pretty close to theft It is theft, plain and simple. Someone makes something, owns the property, they have the right to determine under what conditions they sell it. I always find it hilarious how people defend piracy with arguments about making products more user friendly/cheaper and so on. If you don't like something, don't buy it. If you're bypassing payment without the owners permis…
Bypassing a HTML element is not 'stealing', its reformatting remote data. They are sending the article in the reply to the request, and messing with the formatting. If they did not want you to read the full text, they would not allow an unauthenticated users to access the text.
I always find it hilarious how the strong IP bullies like to reinforce the status quo, empowering the powerful and cursing the weak.
Maybe pick 1 or 2 newspapers you consider to be truthful to actually get a subscriptions for, besides using this addon. I get it, there are newspapers out there you really don't check out that often, and they have no free articles per month or "purchase this article", and paying 20 dollars for a subscription for 2 articles a month at 10 different newspapers is a little much. But the more people don't pay for news, th…
There's about 4 or 5 I would like to check
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is this Hacker News?
Judging from the current sentiment around piracy among younger generations, I've concluded that MPAA/RIAA propaganda against piracy has been a rousing success. My philosophy has always been: Pay for things if you are able, it's convenient, and pricing is fair. And if piracy is easier than paying, piracy always wins. It's the reason I buy all my video games now and rarely pirate music anymore, but half of my TV and mo…
This is cool, but how is it different from piracy?
The sites offer the articles for free to search engines and the like, otherwise this wouldn't work. It's not that different from using archive.is etc Imo. Hacker news isn't usable without this anymore.
Edit: Found it. It's still against their rules. https://developers.google.com/search/docs/advanced/guideline...>
I love this extension. It works very well. I use it to browse 20-30 different sites a month. It would cost hundreds of dollars to individually subscribe to each publication.
You want people to pay for everything? Go "disrupt" the industry and create a spotify for news.
Accessing paid content without paying is stealing...right?