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

Wait, Google Sent Me

chrome.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 246 posts

Re: Wait, Google Sent Me

#171

Post by schoen »

marcosdumay wrote: post #127
tokenizerrr wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Every time there is also somebody complaining that we shouldn't evade pay walls at all. But that's indeed a really odd set of comments. While there is some criticism on this thread here, it's way more down to Earth, nobody is talking about theft or anything.

Maybe people feel that people should only avoid paywalls in a random and haphazard way, and not a systematic way, or that people should avoid paywalls whenever they want but not make it convenient for the general public to do that?

Is there a name for ethical notions related to whether people make a habit of something, or whether people help make something convenient?

Re: Wait, Google Sent Me

#172

Post by frik »

jashkenas wrote: post #163
umurkontaci wrote: post #145

I have actually made a bookmarklet that allows you to do the same without installing an extension. https://umur.io/paywall-bypass-bookmarklet-come-from-google/ Related HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9134118

Very nice approach. I didn't know that Google had that auto-redirect feature. But it's not working reliably for me. Frequently, when I click the bookmarklet, it gets stuck on a blank page. Does it work every time for you?

> I didn't know that Google had that auto-redirect feature.

It uses the functionality of the "I feel lucky" button. It will only work if the site has been indexed by Google, but that's usually the case with news pages that show such fake paywall messages.

Btw. please Google fix your frontpage, you serve an unformatted text message (IE9-11): http://s7.postimg.org/52fu9wbdn/google_bug.png

Re: Wait, Google Sent Me

#173

Post by donohoe »

patcon wrote: post #43
donohoe wrote: post #37

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

Also, not my intent to shame. And I'll apologize to Jeremy next time I see him if it came across that way. Actually, as I write and re-read it, it does come across that way.

Sorry.

Re: Wait, Google Sent Me

#174

Post by Quanticles »

yoasif_ wrote: post #100
threedaymonk wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can achieve the same thing with the RefControl add-on, which allows you to set a custom referrer for a particular site: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/refcontrol

Fantastic tip. For anyone interested in trying this out, use http://news.google.com as the "custom" referer. Screenshots and help here: http://www.renjusblog.com/2010/01/hack-read-wall-street-onli...

Thanks, this worked perfectly

Re: Wait, Google Sent Me

#175

Post by acomms »

umurkontaci wrote: post #145

I have actually made a bookmarklet that allows you to do the same without installing an extension. https://umur.io/paywall-bypass-bookmarklet-come-from-google/ Related HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9134118

Haha very nice solution

Re: Wait, Google Sent Me

#176

Post by manigandham »

ryandrake wrote: post #161
manigandham wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Life and business is all about 3rd parties and working with and against them. It's quite easy to say that things should just be better but it's not like all these publishers are stupid and just sitting around not trying to come up with better solutions. This is actually the best we have at this moment without a massive shift in how the web works. The fact is that the internet makes things very easy to take without re…

There's no taking going on here. Taking something implies a transfer of possession, leaving one party no longer in possession of that thing. My browsing a web page does not result in such an outcome.

Taking is not zero-sum. Virtual existence does not disqualify ownership or rights. Content is intangible but still carries value, the same way millions of people can have a copy of a song but it is still property.

Receiving that value in the form of content without compensation, either by viewing ads or paying money, is still "taking" it against the wishes of the provider.

Re: Wait, Google Sent Me

#177

Post by umurkontaci »

jashkenas wrote: post #163
umurkontaci wrote: post #145

I have actually made a bookmarklet that allows you to do the same without installing an extension. https://umur.io/paywall-bypass-bookmarklet-come-from-google/ Related HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9134118

Very nice approach. I didn't know that Google had that auto-redirect feature. But it's not working reliably for me. Frequently, when I click the bookmarklet, it gets stuck on a blank page. Does it work every time for you?

Thanks.

As @frik noted, it uses "I'm feeling lucky" feature of Google. It requires the page to be indexed to work. If the page isn't indexed then it won't work. But since the pages you'd like to see are indexed almost always, it shouldn't be a problem.

Re: Wait, Google Sent Me

#178

Post by at-fates-hands »

scrollaway wrote: post #45
at-fates-hands wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who works with SEO, this was my first reaction. It's going to make a lot of my analytics wonky and the numbers won't be very accurate. I guess you have to assume such a small percentage of people will actually be using this, so the numbers won't be too bad??

As someone who works with SEO, maybe it's time you learn your entire field of work depends on the good will of both search engines and users to not put a screwdriver in the ball you play with.

Actually, I do more development work than SEO, so referring to my "entire field of work" is a bit. . .well. . .erroneous.

But hey, whatever makes you feel better pal.

Re: Wait, Google Sent Me

#179

Post by manigandham »

scrollaway wrote: post #164
manigandham wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Life and business is all about 3rd parties and working with and against them. It's quite easy to say that things should just be better but it's not like all these publishers are stupid and just sitting around not trying to come up with better solutions. This is actually the best we have at this moment without a massive shift in how the web works. The fact is that the internet makes things very easy to take without re…

> Just because it's easy though, doesn't make it "right". If something is both easy and rewarding for those who do it, don't base your business on trusting people not to do it. Consequentially, don't base your morality code on a notion of "people shouldn't do it". They shouldn't do it because it hurts businesses, but it only hurts businesses because they're foolish enough to make the first mistake.

I believe your foundation for this argument is flawed and doesn't answer my statement: just because something is easy, does not make it right.

"People shouldn't do it" is the fundamental way laws and regulations work. You shouldn't damage property or steal items or assault people. But you can. Very easily. And depending on when/where/how you can probably get away with it. Does that make it ok?

Actions in the physical world have very lasting effects and, these days, leave a big trail which allows the proper authorities to catch the bad actor and dispense justice (the topic of what is proper justice being out of scope for this thread). The digital world is much harder with things happening instantaneously with very little if any trail. If publishers could catch you, they would. Realistically, they just can't. But this lapse in their abilities does not empower and justify your abilities to do what should not be done.

Business models are a completely separate topic and, yes, it's usually good to align the model with normal consumer action. However, human nature is to always take with the path of least resistance and in the case of "value", to acquire it for nothing in exchange if possible. Most businesses work because they can block any access to that value without a proper exchange. Internet publishing however is very unique in that the very structure of the web which makes it so open is also what makes it impossible to stop and effectively filter anyone. The paywall is one such filter but they have this opening for access to Google listings and let a few users be randomly awarded free content. If there was a way they could be listed on Google without losing their paywall, they would, and this whole situation would be non-existent.

Re: Wait, Google Sent Me

#180

Post by gambiter »

donohoe wrote: post #169
gambiter wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When have micro-payments actually been used in any meaningful way? I've only seen companies complaining that they aren't viable. They were certainly quick to make the choice for me. Otherwise, if people saw truly unique content from you (and others), they would be paying in one or more of the options you mentioned. They obviously don't see the point, however, because very little on the web is truly unique. This seems…

...have become irrelevant Please read this article: "Cuomo Orders Emergency Measures to Protect Workers at Nail Salons" http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/11/nyregion/cuomo-orders-emer... That response by a state governor was in due to an article in The New York Times from a week ago. Also, do not underestimate the amount of original content that these orgs churn out that other sites repackage and repurpose. Irrelevant?…

I think it's wonderful that the NYT made a difference, but that certainly doesn't prove your point.

> original content that these orgs churn out that other sites repackage and repurpose.

What percentage of their content are truly original, first-to-break stories? Really, be honest. Now how much of their content are fluff/opinion pieces, rehashes of the last month of stories, and info that has been 'repackaged and repurposed' from the internet? If you try to claim the larger percentage is the former, you're just being obtuse.

You're quick to defend traditional media, but you totally glossed over the other points I raised. It's obvious (based on your comments here) that you have a bone to pick with anyone who doesn't believe your employer (and others like it) are worth what they think they are worth.

Again, it's clear based on market force that the PUBLIC doesn't agree with you. If they did, you would have seen success in the methods you mentioned.

> Micro-payments, dumb 'capthcha' based models, memberships, events, "premier access"

Whether you personally agree with me or not, the public is speaking, and they are telling you that your business model isn't worth what you claim.

Post reply on HN