Google blocked my Chrome extension so I created a website to host it

Post by kube-system » Wed, Aug 31, 2022, 4:26 PM UTC

vorpalhex wrote: post #28

xhkkffbf wrote: post #22

Let me just say -- and I'll get voted down for this -- that I think breaching paywalls is generally immoral. While I can imagine some moral reasons, I think most people are doing it even though they can pay. They are taking someone's work and using it without permission while refusing to pay. Of course I may be biased because I make some of my living creating content behind paywalls. If free access and ad support wer…

The issue with paywalls is the bait and switch - you push the whole content for SEO then force users to pay money. Nobody cares if you want to sell the secrets of the universe for $5000/mo. We care about the bait and switch. By setting up this bait and switch, you hurt your own paywall - if the search engine can get a full copy, so can I. Want these extensions to stop working? Stop the bait and switch.

Post by kube-system » Wed, Aug 31, 2022, 4:35 PM UTC

vorpalhex wrote: post #53

hk__2 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> By setting up this bait and switch, you hurt your own paywall - if the search engine can get a full copy, so can I. I don’t get this. They do whatever they want with their content. Editors give free book copies to journalists; that doesn’t gives you the right to have one as well.

You can't give a free copy to the local library to drive sales and be upset when people borrow the book and read it from the local library.

Post by hk__2 » Wed, Aug 31, 2022, 4:41 PM UTC

vorpalhex wrote: post #53

hk__2 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> By setting up this bait and switch, you hurt your own paywall - if the search engine can get a full copy, so can I. I don’t get this. They do whatever they want with their content. Editors give free book copies to journalists; that doesn’t gives you the right to have one as well.

You can't give a free copy to the local library to drive sales and be upset when people borrow the book and read it from the local library.

Post by kube-system » Wed, Aug 31, 2022, 4:44 PM UTC

vehemenz wrote: post #52

geysersam wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is that relevant? They've created their content - if they want to share it with a search engine that's none of your business. The technology does not allow them to do this without sharing it with you as well. But that is ethically irrelevant. (Of course, we also deserve a good search engine allowing us to remove paywalled sites and seo spam from our results.)

Publishers are subverting users' reasonable expectations that the information they search and receive hits for on Google is publicly accessible—why else would it appear in search? It's actually everyone's business because this creates a web that is less usable for everyone. If publishers were willing to commit and make their paid content server-side for customers only, they would have a stronger case against infringe…

Post by vorpalhex » Wed, Aug 31, 2022, 4:59 PM UTC

kube-system wrote: post #64

vorpalhex wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't give a free copy to the local library to drive sales and be upset when people borrow the book and read it from the local library.

And you cannot take a book from someone who asks for money, refuse to pay, and say "but it's free at the library!" The difference is consent.