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

Mozilla pulls Bypass Paywalls from Firefox add-ons store

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 288 posts

Re: Mozilla pulls Bypass Paywalls from Firefox add-ons store

#121

Post by idle_zealot »

funklebunkle wrote: post #76
Vinnl wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've recently been experimenting with creating an extension, and the automated signing was literally one of the first things I did when I followed the Hello World tutorial. It's very easy to obtain an .xpi that you can distribute to your users yourself.

How do you do this without leaking your code to mozilla?

Out of curiosity, under what circumstances would you consider distributing an extension bundle to be leaking its code? Unless I'm misunderstanding, isn't this the same file you'll be distributing to your users? At first bluff it seems similar to worrying about leaking your website's frontend (I've got news for you...).

Re: Mozilla pulls Bypass Paywalls from Firefox add-ons store

#122

Post by SilasX »

zaarn wrote: post #120
SilasX wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But what about the whole "give users control of their machines again"? What if I have an extension originating elsewhere -- say, because I'm a sympathetic person Mozilla claims they encourage learning to code -- and I want to bypass the usual protections. They still won't let me install it.

You can install it if you use the developer edition or unbranded version, this is fairly well documented.

Sure, if you're willing to forgo the updates and have to manually install each time, or have the updates convert you to the branded version:

https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2016/07/29/extension-signing...

(Good luck compiling it yourself.)

Re: Mozilla pulls Bypass Paywalls from Firefox add-ons store

#123

Post by kbumsik »

gradschool wrote: post #72

Isn't this exactly the kind of user-hostile behavior open source is supposed to prevent? Apologies if this is a naive question, but how hard would it be to delete the parts of the release version of the Firefox source code that pertain to checking signatures for add-ons and recompile it?

> Isn't this exactly the kind of user-hostile behavior open source is supposed to prevent?

What part of behavior is user-hostile?

Re: Mozilla pulls Bypass Paywalls from Firefox add-ons store

#124

Post by zaarn »

SilasX wrote: post #122
zaarn wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can install it if you use the developer edition or unbranded version, this is fairly well documented.

Sure, if you're willing to forgo the updates and have to manually install each time, or have the updates convert you to the branded version: https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2016/07/29/extension-signing... (Good luck compiling it yourself.)

I compile a unbranded version of Firefox for each released version on my private repository for AUR packages, automated and without the need of intervention at all.

I'm currently running the branded release but I could pick unbranded, beta, dev or nightly editions of Firefox if I wanted. It's not hard to automate and especially with the unbranded version you have permission to distribute the binary that results, a permission you don't have with the branded edition.

You can also use the Nightly or Developer Edition of Firefox as well.

Re: Mozilla pulls Bypass Paywalls from Firefox add-ons store

#125

Post by zaarn »

the8472 wrote: post #118
zaarn wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not quite. The signature is to ensure users install from the addon store. You can disable this if you wish to run non-store addons. Otherwise any website or external program (remember your A/V installing their safety toolbar?) could start adding fishy code to your browser.

That is a totally different issue. One thing is reviewing what's on your store. The other is restricting people to only installing what's on their store. One is happening on their property. The other is happening on the user's property. They also want to exert control over the latter, which is causing these problems.

I would disagree this is a different issue, one leads to the other. Mozilla wants to make sure that any addon the user can possibly installed is something they can trust. Including addons that other applications install (ie AV toolbars).

If you don't like that, you can use the unbranded version of firefox or the dev edition.

Re: Mozilla pulls Bypass Paywalls from Firefox add-ons store

#126

Post by vesak »

Bypassing paywalls is easily in top ten most evil things you can do as a consumer in a modern information society. We should pay for the things we consume, with money. But only with money.

Then again, if the thing behind the paywall expects money and tracks/mines you, then fuck'em.

Re: Mozilla pulls Bypass Paywalls from Firefox add-ons store

#127

Post by dleslie »

beart wrote: post #90

I've never understood how paywall bypass addons can be considered ethical. Even if you hate paywalls, it's the publisher's decision to use them. If I were to take a newspaper from a news stand without paying because there's an article I want to read but I don't want to pay, is that much different? I'm honestly asking what the justification is for people who use these addons. Do you not consider it unethical or do you…

Remember when there were scandals in the early days of digitization where redacted government documents were easily revealed because the redaction was performed by layering a black rectangle on top of the PDF text? The text was there to read for anyone savvy enough to remove the rectangles.

The solution, of course, was to remove the text from the PDF altogether.

Paywalls are a similar sort of measure: if publishers don't want their content to be available without payment then they ought not serve it publicly. Similarly, if they don't want users using adblock then they ought not serve the content to those who fail to load the ads.

Is it ethical to bypass flimsy DRM? The bits are on the user's computer and are processed by the user's software at the user's discretion. Publishers _may_ have no right to exert control upon the user's property; and I suppose whether they do is the crux of concern.

Re: Mozilla pulls Bypass Paywalls from Firefox add-ons store

#128

Post by mkirklions »

Doctor_Fegg wrote: post #105
mkirklions wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Apple's primary aim by limiting the access to the store isn't to make devs miserable, it's to have users trust the app store. What about when they force devs to buy their multi-thousand dollar ecosystem? That has nothing to do with quality apps. Also, by excluding the poor from developing for iOS, they are widening income inequality.

I develop for iOS on a secondhand Mac mini and commodity keyboard, mouse and monitor. Total cost well under £600, let alone “multi-thousands of dollars”.

That sounds like a potential solution to me.

Still costs more than any other development. Where'd you get your's second hand?

Re: Mozilla pulls Bypass Paywalls from Firefox add-ons store

#129

Post by vesak »

ykevinator wrote: post #19

We need easy to use, non subscription micro payments. I was hopeful Bitcoin would do this but sadly it was never adopted as a mainstream payment platform.

Stellar seems like a good platform for this. I'm investigating myself about implementing this, and it would be awesome.

Re: Mozilla pulls Bypass Paywalls from Firefox add-ons store

#130

Post by Karunamon »

kibwen wrote: post #103

HN mods: title is incorrect and misleading, should at least read "Bypass Paywalls add-on removed from Firefox add-ons store". The use of "Mozilla" in the title has caused a lot of confusion in this thread from people who haven't clicked through the link.

Distinction without a difference, IMO. Mozilla has chosen to require this level of curation on Firefox against all complaints in the name of "safety", so they can also take the heat when their process results in an outcome like this. Their browser, their addon site, their decision, their fault.
Post reply on HN