151–160 of 246 posts
I need a 'facebook sent me' version, lots of websites allow facebook references but not neccesarily google. I'm reduced to going to facebook and sending a message to myself with the url so I can click on it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This has nothing to do with net neutrality. While it may be an important issue, conflating it with net neutrality is unhelpful.
Traffic flowing through one discovery channel is free, but traffic flowing through another isn't. While technically separate from net neutrality as it's happening in a different place in the networking stack, it's the same principle: if it flows over the network, it should be equal.
That really misrepresents the case. Its not a difference in traffic costs, its a difference in whether the edge provider is willing to send its content over the network to you. And they are willing to do so if you are paying them directly, or you are sent by someone who is paying them with a certain quantity of exposure.
While you could probably formulate a single principle that would support both what you are calling for here and net neutrality, it probably would be a controversial principle even among people who support net neutrality, and wouldn't represent what many people who do support net neutrality support. Claiming that if someone doesn't agree with you on this they must oppose net neutrality is simply wrong, and unhelpful to either your cause of net neutrality.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn't see that option when I signed up a few years ago. When I look at my account now, the only place I see that option is when requesting Vacation Suspension. Do you happen to know if there's a place on the website to set this indefinitely? I guess I can call.
I'm on permanent vacation as far as the NYT knows
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This has nothing to do with net neutrality. While it may be an important issue, conflating it with net neutrality is unhelpful.
Traffic flowing through one discovery channel is free, but traffic flowing through another isn't. While technically separate from net neutrality as it's happening in a different place in the networking stack, it's the same principle: if it flows over the network, it should be equal.
Net neutrality is about the service provider not getting involved in what the service carries.
A content owner can freely decide who can/cant view their content, that's completely up to them. Same way we have regional rights for video content.
Just because we want it to be equal doesn't take their rights away, regardless of consumer perception, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> It's quite a bit absurd to complain about technical solutions which fullfill the needs of users. 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.
And where's the source to that little strawman of yours?
I'm sure users also want hot threesomes and a million dollars.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
... if you use our Trusted Corporate Partner™ No. Not like that. Basically, its Google saying publishes must do this or they won't send traffic their way (via search result / SEO) Its not publishers saying use Google over Bing over Yahoo etc. Lest we fall into a vortex where you're only allowed to browse the public web by logging in through Facebook The other argument that this may hold water is similar exceptions wh…
Who'd link to the NYT if it was always a paywall, indeed? Of course I understand that the publishers don't want to cut themselves out of the conversation. But why must "the conversation" be limited to powerful internet companies? Do we not converse about news articles in blog posts? Comment threads? Up and coming social platforms that don't have Facebooks media clout yet? It's simply unfair to treat a visitor arrivin…
It would not be hard for Google to append one-time, time-limited tokens to SERP links to get searchers from Google to NYT (or other big publishers). Google would just need to provide an invite-only API for the publishers to check the tokens against in real time. At their scale this would be pretty trivial. This would have the neat effect of breaking your extension, and locking in special treatment.
Google would not bother to do this right now, because the referrer trick largely benefits Google (the typical advice is "just Google the headline"), and is not widely abused. But if people start widely circumventing both Google and the paywall (with something like your extension), then the interests will align and Google and the publishers will act together.
Google executives have said repeatedly and publicly that they want existing news organizations to survive and feel a responsibility to help them do so.
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.
Fine you can have a paywall but then you won't get the free organic traffic from Google. WSJ tries to have it both ways.
The content is the same, it's the business model of the publisher that's different: ads vs subscription.
Google is just serving as an index, you can't read it on Google itself so why should they be able to discriminate content providers based on business model?
Source code: https://gist.github.com/jashkenas/9a4d9e648eb11aab394e
Did someone make a Firefox version yet?
https://github.com/zethraeus/wgsm-ff/blob/master/gglsntm.xpi...
(consider reading the source instead of just trusting it)