101–110 of 246 posts
Interesting. I posted a Chrome extension that did the same thing a while back (WSJ specific) and HN unanimously told me I was in the wrong, so I took it down. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8109987 This time the comments seem to be mostly positive.
Disappointed in you Jeremy. Its fair for many here to complain about some of the online advertising practices of publishers. However the viable alternative it to pivot to some form of subscription model. Its a hard transition and many orgs are making risky changes to do better. Extensions like these are a step backwards. If you value the work you should support it. See bio for usual disclaimers
Interesting. I posted a Chrome extension that did the same thing a while back (WSJ specific) and HN unanimously told me I was in the wrong, so I took it down. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8109987 This time the comments seem to be mostly positive.
It would be nice if Google could make some of the Chrome permissions a bit more fine-grained. This one needs to "read and change your data on all websites", but with a better extensions architecture could be something much less scary like "read and change your data on the current website whenever you click the extension's icon".
Alternatively, it would be good if extensions could have a whitelist and/or blacklist of sites that they are enabled on, with most extensions having a default blacklist of all financial sites, banks, brokerages, email accounts, etc. Perhaps also create a way for corporations to blacklist their intranets. It makes me very nervous that if some extension owner sells out to the wrong person, suddenly they could see my pr…
Disappointed in you Jeremy. Its fair for many here to complain about some of the online advertising practices of publishers. However the viable alternative it to pivot to some form of subscription model. Its a hard transition and many orgs are making risky changes to do better. Extensions like these are a step backwards. If you value the work you should support it. See bio for usual disclaimers
It's quite a bit absurd to complain about technical solutions which fullfill the needs of users. If a source of income revolves around annoying users into paying and for them not to find a way around such annoyances, don't expect it to last forever. In this model, I consider the whole tactic to be publishers relying too much on Google's policy in the first place. If they change that policy, said publishers are screwe…
Nonsense. Users want everything for free, instantly and with no ads.
I would like my sandwiches from the shop downstairs to be free all the time. But it's not cool to forge stamps on a loyalty card.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree - but to be fair you're assuming they haven't experimented. Micro-payments, dumb 'capthcha' based models, memberships, events, "premier access". All have been tried in various flavors. Some with limited success. I'm not asking for you to dream up an alternative solution, but don't assume this is a problem that has not been given a lot of thought by many organizations. This is partly why we are stuck with thin…
Even people inside the NYT know the pricing for digital subscriptions is excessive. They're high because circ department won an internal war and inflated digital prices in a misguided attempt to protect print subs. The NYT has experimented but is still clinging to the past. Which is why the "All Digital Access" subscription costs more than Netflix, Hulu, and HBO Now combined. Give me a break.
Interesting. I posted a Chrome extension that did the same thing a while back (WSJ specific) and HN unanimously told me I was in the wrong, so I took it down. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8109987 This time the comments seem to be mostly positive.
Interesting. I posted a Chrome extension that did the same thing a while back (WSJ specific) and HN unanimously told me I was in the wrong, so I took it down. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8109987 This time the comments seem to be mostly positive.
In that post you didn't advertise that the "pay"wall can be circumvented just by Googling. It's possible HN perceives an ethical difference between that and a paywall where you actually have to pay.
1) Many people are ethically opposed to circumventing paywalls.
2) Many people are ethically opposed to paywalls treating certain traffic as special or different.
As Jeremy says below: "What's not so great is creating an internet where if you use our Trusted Corporate Partner™ you're allowed to view a public webpage, and if you come from anywhere less privileged on the internet, you're not. That's not sustainable. Lest we fall into a vortex where you're only allowed to browse the public web by logging in through Facebook. I wouldn't want to be online in that world."
I agree. I think the difference in responses from HN commenters is about which ethical evaluation people are focusing on, #1 or #2 above.
Interesting. I posted a Chrome extension that did the same thing a while back (WSJ specific) and HN unanimously told me I was in the wrong, so I took it down. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8109987 This time the comments seem to be mostly positive.
Responding to specific criticism from your comments:
> It does feel excessive or cynical or something to install an actual app to work around a paywall. The WSJ organization says, you must pay us $28.99 a month for full access to this content. That's the value they've placed on their content, that's the price they are charging, and that's what people should pay.
> The fact that they also make most if not all of the content available on a "complimentary" basis via Google suggests that they do value occasional visits from non-subscribers.
> However if millions of non-subscribers were to install a paywall avoidance app and access the full content on a daily basis, this would probably violate the spirit of "occasional".
WSJ certainly deserves to set whatever price on their work that they wish, and they also deserved to be compensated according to the value of that work.
However, if the workaround is no more in violation of the "spirit of occasional [visits]" than this publisher practice is in violation of the "spirit" of web navigation. That spirit is that users should not be discriminated against based on their navigation source.
Google search results should not be a representation of content that is not allowed to direct visitors. If WSJ wants to represent to Googlebot and Google visitors that the content is open, then it should be open to direct visitors as well.
If I, a user, did nothing special to access the content, I should be able to pass on the link to a new set of users. This practice breaks that, and, I imagine almost invariably, users will not understand why.
Interesting. I posted a Chrome extension that did the same thing a while back (WSJ specific) and HN unanimously told me I was in the wrong, so I took it down. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8109987 This time the comments seem to be mostly positive.
If it makes you feel better, I feel that both extensions are wrong. If you enjoy reading the WSJ, you should pay for it. They do some really great business reporting and it's not that expensive.
I feel that discriminating based on referrer is wrong. Or IP address. Or geographic location. Or user agent.
More than that, discriminating based on those things is really flimsy.
A website should provide the same content regardless of what browser you're using or where you're coming from.