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

131–140 of 288 posts

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

#131

Post by SilasX »

zaarn wrote: post #124
SilasX wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pe…

Yes, you could. What about the person Mozilla claims to want to get into coding? They have to choose between getting the regular updates vs being able to tweak their addons.

And do you plan to set that all up in the middle of your workday when a forced update disables your extensions?

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

#134

Post by Karunamon »

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…

>is that much different?

Well, considering we're talking about physical vs digital, it's inherently different. But let's ignore that; it's still not even close. You send content to my browser, my agent acting on my behalf, and it is up to me how I render that content. If that bothers you, don't send me the content.

You as a publisher have no inherent right, be it moral, ethical, or legal, to have content displayed a certain way on my screen.

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

#135

Post by londons_explore »

lunchables wrote: post #97
dmortin wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's why they need a log, because there will be cashback requests which people could abuse. And this will not necessarily be only pennies. A penny for a single page, for example, but if you visit many pages of the same site then the amount will be much higher and a user could claim then he has never visited that site and wants his money back.

Seems like there has to be some method to solve this? Maybe the transaction is part of the page load? You don't get the page until you pay via anonymous cryptocurrency. No need for any post-transaction verification and reconciliation? The problem there will be if the page fails to load, how can I safely get a second attempt without creating some kind of "double-spending" problem.

There is.

You can do tracking in such a way only the person browsing has a log. In the case of a dispute, the log file can be revealed to the website so they can determine how to resolve the dispute.

In the undisputed case, the website wouldn't see the log.

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

#136

Post by PhasmaFelis »

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.

It is not reasonable for a user-freedom-oriented browser like Firefox to require you to install a separate version to install unsigned extensions. Hiding it in about:config behind a "this is dangerous, are you sure" warning would be the right thing to do here.

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

#137

Post by Karunamon »

kbumsik wrote: post #123
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?

Preventing the user from installing whatever they choose, for starters.

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

#138

Post by imhoguy »

einr wrote: post #52
vetinari wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Technically, serving few images is not a problem. The question arises, what images to serve. Someone has to sell advertisement, find clients, persuade them to advertise with the given site, etc. That's something they are getting with ad networks for free.

You could easily outsource ad sales while still serving the images unobtrusively from your own server.

Who owns a server today? Even publishing platforms are outsourced or behind nicely packaged SaaS today, not to mention infrastructure services. There is no more "FTP your site to XYZ".

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

#139

Post by jccalhoun »

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…

I use it because I am not a regular reader of any paywalled site. If I end up at one it is because I saw a post about it or it showed up in a search result. At that point I don't even know if the article is any good so I'm not going to jump through hoops to view the article. Is it ethical? Probably not but since it is at most something like 1 article a month that I read from any of these sites then I can justify it to myself.

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

#140

Post by zaarn »

SilasX wrote: post #131
zaarn wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pe…

Yes, you could. What about the person Mozilla claims to want to get into coding? They have to choose between getting the regular updates vs being able to tweak their addons. And do you plan to set that all up in the middle of your workday when a forced update disables your extensions?

Again, you can also use the developer edition, which also allows unsigned addons and has automatic updates but also doesn't disable your extension. It's specifically meant for people getting into coding.

Plus, there is more ways than developing FF addons to get into coding that Mozilla wants to stimulate, developing the browser itself or websites is also an alternate goal you can join in addition to trying out making your own addons.

Post reply on HN