111–120 of 246 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Now there's a stinging criticism of HN. Sorry habosa. You're not popular enough to do disruptive things.
Too true. I'd love to see what Hacker News comments would look like if all comments were anonymous for the first 6 hours...
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
Not a fan of the shaming... If news orgs value their journalists and the future of the profession, they should experiment with more daring models, rather than ones that simply maximally enrich the org under the same old model EDIT: imho a model that falls apart legally under a browser extension that fits in a 40-line gist is nothing on which to base the livelihoods of a bunch of people
Really? With a Google™ in the name, too? What do you think is going to happen in the next two hours? 1) They'll take down your extension because you're violating their ToS and their trademark 2) The extension will already piss off their "partners", but they can't really say that's the reason they're taking it down, so good thing you provided them with option 1)! I have nothing against the extension itself. I search f…
I don't see how he is violating the trademark (though that ™ should be a ®).
http://www.google.com/permissions/trademark/our-trademarks.h...
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.
Wow, those comments are really odd. Every time a WSJ article is submitted here a comment contains a link to avoid the paywall, and every single time people are grateful.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Now there's a stinging criticism of HN. Sorry habosa. You're not popular enough to do disruptive things.
Too true. I'd love to see what Hacker News comments would look like if all comments were anonymous for the first 6 hours...
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.
Really? With a Google™ in the name, too? What do you think is going to happen in the next two hours? 1) They'll take down your extension because you're violating their ToS and their trademark 2) The extension will already piss off their "partners", but they can't really say that's the reason they're taking it down, so good thing you provided them with option 1)! I have nothing against the extension itself. I search f…
I don't see how he is violating the trademark (though that ™ should be a ®).
AFAIK, without a trademark license, using it to promote your product (including using it as part of your product name) is generally a violation of trademark. Nominal fair use allows you to use the trademark to refer to the thing that trademark names in descriptive text, but not generally as part of the name of your product.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 both extensions are wrong. 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.