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

211–220 of 246 posts

Re: Wait, Google Sent Me

#211

Post by chavesn »

mahouse wrote: post #142
chavesn wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you had a branding problem. Yours appeared to be an attack on a brand that is doing good work; this one seems more to be thwarting a sinister publisher practice. 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…

> 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. Don't you think we should also have the option to decide not to pay using these "dirty" tricks of the trade?

Yes, that is what I am trying to say. Karunamon (above/below[1]) said it better than I did. The WSJ deserves to be compensated for their work if they ask to be (in other words, consumers should not "steal" the content), but my questions is whether they have actually asked for the payment.

In my opinion, this tactic is no different than offering it for free but then demanding payment anyway.

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9534392

Re: Wait, Google Sent Me

#212

Post by fyrabanks »

frozenport wrote: post #104
woodcroft wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Yeah and then you could extort people for money like the AD-Block guy!

I haven't used AdBlock for a year or so now, but I'm fairly certain sure his model was donationware. Did something change recently?

Re: Wait, Google Sent Me

#213

Post by kuschku »

zethraeus wrote: post #160
kuschku wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did someone make a Firefox version yet?

here's a port i cobbled together from some firefox addon demos in 15 minutes. tested to work on wsj https://github.com/zethraeus/wgsm-ff/blob/master/gglsntm.xpi... (consider reading the source instead of just trusting it)

I sent you a pull request improving your code – only making the change apply to the current tab, and changing the Icon Name ;)

Re: Wait, Google Sent Me

#214

Post by umurkontaci »

metasean wrote: post #200
umurkontaci wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

FYI: The test link[1] doesn't work for me. It either reloads a white page, or reloads the page but it is still firewalled. [1] https://go.umur.io/wsj/

That's interesting, I see a white page for a second or two and I get redirected. If something else is happening for you, would you mind sending me a DM on twitter @umurkontaci? I might be able to fix it.

Re: Wait, Google Sent Me

#215

Post by umurkontaci »

jashkenas wrote: post #192
umurkontaci wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No, that's not what I mean. I mean that the bookmarklet is working intermittently for me on any page. I'll click it, and sometimes get redirected through, and sometimes end up on a blank white page. That doesn't happen to you?

I see a blank page for a second than I get redirected to the actual page. Could you also hit me on twitter @umurkontaci to help me diagnose?

Re: Wait, Google Sent Me

#216

Post by ikeboy »

Karunamon wrote: post #182
traek wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we should (and do) have the option to decide not to pay and not consume the content.

That's an answer to a different question. If WSJ, an amoral business entity, decides to serve different content to Google users and different content to everyone else, then you're left answering a question about user intent. Personally, I don't think it's fair that WSJ simultaneously demands money for content but leaves open a loophole so they can get Google exposure, and then complain when people use said exposure.…

Actually, Google requires free article access from referrals to be included in Google News at all. (There are other ways, but I think that one was recommended.)

Re: Wait, Google Sent Me

#217

Post by 0942v8653 »

fyrabanks wrote: post #212
frozenport wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah and then you could extort people for money like the AD-Block guy!

I haven't used AdBlock for a year or so now, but I'm fairly certain sure his model was donationware. Did something change recently?

The AdBlock Plus guy gets paid by companies to put their site on the "unobtrusive ads" list -- those ads don't get blocked for the majority of AdBlock Plus users.

Re: Wait, Google Sent Me

#218

Post by [deleted] »

bdcravens wrote: post #136
eli wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess I just disagree. Right now if WSJ comes up in your google results, the link works and you can read the article. If link didn't work and paywall appeared instead of the article, that would be a problem (which is why Google outlawed it). Would you prefer it instead if WSJ.com just removed themselves from Google? And applied the paywall to everyone? I don't see how that's better. Or is the complaint that any pay…

If you discover content via Google, you can see it. If you discover content via HN, you can't. Anyone who believes this is ok is pretty much saying they are opposed to net neutrality.

[deleted]

Re: Wait, Google Sent Me

#219

Post by ikeboy »

maratd wrote: post #110
eli wrote: post #107

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.

Or how much you're paying?

Re: Wait, Google Sent Me

#220

Post by [deleted] »

maratd wrote: post #110
eli wrote: post #107

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.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN