41–50 of 123 posts
Just press that, select the paywall (and any other junk backdrops/opaque divs), and press delete.
Sometimes the site also sets an `overflow: hidden` in the css, and you need to remove that to see the content..
Many sites don't contains the full content even if you do that. I'm not sure of how it works (does it subscribed to them all?) but https://archive.ph/ is a good way to see the content in those cases. But really, if you are regularly reading content on a site you should subscribe to support the journalists employed there.
Many sites don't contains the full content even if you do that. I'm not sure of how it works (does it subscribed to them all?) but https://archive.ph/ is a good way to see the content in those cases. But really, if you are regularly reading content on a site you should subscribe to support the journalists employed there.
- Is it fair use because it's "archiving" the web?
- Is it because it's on the open web and it's public domain?
- Or is it illegal, and people do it because they can ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Many sites don't contains the full content even if you do that. I'm not sure of how it works (does it subscribed to them all?) but https://archive.ph/ is a good way to see the content in those cases. But really, if you are regularly reading content on a site you should subscribe to support the journalists employed there.
Is this even legal? How can sites host other ones' content, and that's ok? - Is it fair use because it's "archiving" the web? - Is it because it's on the open web and it's public domain? - Or is it illegal, and people do it because they can ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
As soon as your site sends the whole content of the article to the browser, you're not even trying seriously. (And Firefox "reading mode" is just much better ux than the devtools.)
Many sites don't contains the full content even if you do that. I'm not sure of how it works (does it subscribed to them all?) but https://archive.ph/ is a good way to see the content in those cases. But really, if you are regularly reading content on a site you should subscribe to support the journalists employed there.
Is this even legal? How can sites host other ones' content, and that's ok? - Is it fair use because it's "archiving" the web? - Is it because it's on the open web and it's public domain? - Or is it illegal, and people do it because they can ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is this even legal? How can sites host other ones' content, and that's ok? - Is it fair use because it's "archiving" the web? - Is it because it's on the open web and it's public domain? - Or is it illegal, and people do it because they can ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Is caching illegal?