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

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

extensionhub.site

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 105 posts

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

#81

Post by scoopertrooper »

thrdbndndn wrote: post #75
TekMol wrote: post #44

From the description, it sounds like this extension just puts " https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache :" in front of the current url? If so, you can also do this via a simple bookmarklet: javascript:location.href='https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:'+location.href;{} If you don't know what bookmarklets are: Edit any old bookmark and put the above line into the url field. Next time y…

That doesn't seem to work well. For example, take this NYT article https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/31/health/life-expectancy-co... Google cache: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https:... -- 404 OP's service https://cfworker-beatthatwall.jayass.workers.dev/?url=https:... -- works. However, one can adopt your bookmarklet to use OP's service when needed instead of installing extension/userscript th…

It doesn't work because there is no Google cache entry for that page. They've instructed Google not to cache it.

>

So, OP must be using some other means to retrieve the page.

In the case of NY Times, they're likely just grabbing the non-archived version and performing an operation similar to 12ft ladder.

Google cache fetching seems like it might be an effective strategy for a site like Washington Post that have extremely effective paywall enforcement (till your turn off JS), but also allow Google cache.

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

#82

Post by thayne »

robertlagrant wrote: post #46
vorpalhex wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What's the bait and switch involved?

The content is available to search engines, and they are highly optimized for SEO, so they show up high in search results. So users expect by clicking the link in the search result they can see the rest of the content. Then you get hit with a paywall.

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

#83

Post by aendruk »

mro_name wrote: post #51
jonas21 wrote: post #35

If I'm reading this correctly, the extension sends every URL you use it on to some random service hosted on Cloudflare workers [1]. That doesn't sound good... [1] https://raw.githubusercontent.com/jorgefsilva/beatthatwall/m...

why do so many need a CDN recently?

Cloudflare Workers principally is hosting.

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

#85

Post by paulhodge »

kierenj wrote: post #6

Are there any security implications to enabling developer mode?

For just flipping the switch, no I don't think there's any implication.

For installing an unpacked extension:

- Obviously you don't have the benefit of the Chrome store checking for abuse.

- You'll need to read the manifest.json file yourself to see what permissions you're granting, because the warning popup doesn't show up when installing this way.

- There's a few attacks that unpacked extensions can do because they can spoof their extension ID, and Chrome doesn't consider it a bug. See: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=130196...

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

#86

Post by chasil »

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…

Is it immoral to use an adblocker? Many sites present extensive UI interruptions in the hopes that you will allow their ads.

Is it immoral to browse with Javascript disabled? Does morality require foreign code to run on your local system in order for these intrusive elements to actively manipulate (and potentially exploit) you?

Is it immoral to rewrite a url in such a way that access is allowed? See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16906571

In the days of newsprint, ads might have been garish, but they were bound into the media and they could not track you. Advertising now involves so much more surveillance, that I think the majority of the immorality is not with the end user.

ps I have upvoted you.

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

#88

Post by MichaelCollins »

jayass wrote: post #27
Nowado wrote: post #25

I'm going through another round of google reviewing my extension right now and it does suck, but I can't imagine deciding that getting people to enable developer mode, manually download and load my extension (every time there's an update, too) is the more likely path to adoption.

TamperMonkey extension helps with that. It allows automatic updates

Isn't Manifest v3 going to break TamperMonkey/etc?

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

#89

Post by vorpalhex »

geysersam wrote: post #78
vorpalhex wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"FREE VACATIONS! (you have to sit through a timeshare presentation and there are catches" We widely regard the above as unethical. Adding content to a search engine literally says "you can come read this content!". That is the purpose of search engines. Even Google penalizes paywall behavior and will downrank them - which forces the paywall people to get more clever. Sorry but don't abuse search engines and users to…

They're doing something bad - so it's okay to steal their stuff. Did I get that right?

They are being gamed by their own game. Nobody took their content - they submitted it to search engines and are upset the search engine provides a cached copy.

If they don't like it they can not submit to search engines.

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

#90

Post by vorpalhex »

geysersam wrote: post #74
vehemenz wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That's just your definition of "reasonable". They provide users with an expectation of what information they will receive if they pay for the content . The fact that this "glimpse" of the content pollutes your web searches is a search engine problem. It would be trivial to filter sites with paywalled content. But Google refuses to let you do that. Hope someone else will come along and help with that.

It's the search engines definition of reasonable. Don't like it? Don't let the search engine get to the content.
Post reply on HN