Just a tangent for you all - does anyone envisage a 2nd parallel internet emerging? Not tor-like, an actual completely separate network?
That’s quite a huge tangent. Why? And what could it possibly have to do with the article?
Mozilla hit with takedown request for anti-paywall addons
31–40 of 405 posts
Re: Mozilla hit with takedown request for anti-paywall addons
#32This breaks the social contract of the web. If you publish on the web (over HTTP) using HTML (with or without css+js) then you respect the concept of a User-Agent that renders the content on behalf of the user. If you wish to get around this then create another file format and protocol and application/plugin to do so — one that enforces the DRM for the owner. Don’t take agency away from User-Agent.
Alternatively, the add-ons break the social contract, whereby content creators request payment for their content. If you visit stuff on the web, you respect the concept of a social contract between you and the provide. Don’t try to circumvent their wishes.
Anybody who tries to show me ads clearly respects neither my time nor my money, so why would I respect theirs? Anyway, getting angry at ad-blocking is pretty silly - it's as if someone threw a pamphlet at me while I was talking to them, and then yelled at me because I didn't read it.
Re: Mozilla hit with takedown request for anti-paywall addons
#33here we go -- gearing up to the decade of censorship 2020 and beyond . . . between this and the EU link sharing tax, I am beginning to wonder if the internet really is the last bastion to freedom of speech
This is not a free speech issue at all, nor are the EU regulations free speech issues. The problem with these laws and their interpretation is that they target the wrong organizations and technologies. If a website is illegal, it needs to be taken down by police. Instead, idiot judges rule that certain DNS entries should be blocked. If you shouldn't be allowed to read some pay-walled journal, then the publisher has t…
I mostly agree with you, but the problem with illegals websites is often that they are illegal in a country but hosted in another.
So you can’t really send your own police taking down servers in other countries.
So for the DNS blocking it works because it blocks casual users of those website (I’m thinking torrent or streaming sites essentially).
Of course when you know a bit how it works you use international DNS.
And if you know even more, you use your own :-)
Re: Mozilla hit with takedown request for anti-paywall addons
#34This would not be a problem if Mozilla had sided with users for once and allowed us to install xpi extensions from outside their app store.
You can if you use the Developer Edition. It's permanently disabled in the normal version because malware would piggyback on the browser to steal passwords and so on. Obviously Mozilla have no problem with people wanting to make their own extensions and so on.
Weird, I have 63.0.3 as far as I see the normal version and had no problem downloading and with that updating the November version of "bypass-paywalls" which was also affected from the releases page here: https://github.com/iamadamdev/bypass-paywalls-firefox/releas...
Re: Mozilla hit with takedown request for anti-paywall addons
#35This breaks the social contract of the web. If you publish on the web (over HTTP) using HTML (with or without css+js) then you respect the concept of a User-Agent that renders the content on behalf of the user. If you wish to get around this then create another file format and protocol and application/plugin to do so — one that enforces the DRM for the owner. Don’t take agency away from User-Agent.
Alternatively, the add-ons break the social contract, whereby content creators request payment for their content. If you visit stuff on the web, you respect the concept of a social contract between you and the provide. Don’t try to circumvent their wishes.
"We're sending data to your computer but you mustn't look! Promise!"
I'm not sure how the addon worked, if there's some trickery going on, but I'm long waiting for a lawsuit against ad blockers that could get heated.
Re: Mozilla hit with takedown request for anti-paywall addons
#36How is blocking paywalls different from blocking ads? I hope that someone will fork Firefox and remove that code which prevents users from installing any addons.
They were told to not anymore host the extension on AMO, but it's still signed by Mozilla (and I doubt they would stop signing future versions), so you can still download and install the extension from elsewhere.
Also, Mozilla themselves provide a "fork", i.e. builds compiled with the corresponding flag, that allow unsigned extensions to be installed, after you set "xpinstall.signatures.required" in about:config to false. These builds are Firefox Developer Edition and Firefox Nightly, as well as Unbranded Builds [0] for Beta and Stable.
I believe most Linux distributions also compile with this flag, as disallowing unsigned extensions mostly helped against malware on Windows.
[0]: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Add-ons/Extension_Signing#Unbranded...
Re: Mozilla hit with takedown request for anti-paywall addons
#37here we go -- gearing up to the decade of censorship 2020 and beyond . . . between this and the EU link sharing tax, I am beginning to wonder if the internet really is the last bastion to freedom of speech
This is not a free speech issue at all, nor are the EU regulations free speech issues. The problem with these laws and their interpretation is that they target the wrong organizations and technologies. If a website is illegal, it needs to be taken down by police. Instead, idiot judges rule that certain DNS entries should be blocked. If you shouldn't be allowed to read some pay-walled journal, then the publisher has t…
“Just take down the website” is disingenuous. You, and I, and those idiot judges all know it’s often much harder, and sometimes impossible, to get to the website owners.
“Abolish all copyright” is a legitimate opinion. It’s wrong,of course. But it’s possible to discuss it. Don’t demean yourself and others by starting discussions with disingenuous arguments.
Re: Mozilla hit with takedown request for anti-paywall addons
#38How is blocking paywalls different from blocking ads? I hope that someone will fork Firefox and remove that code which prevents users from installing any addons.
Good question. Arguably, ad blockers are (in part) responsible for the advent of paywalls in the first place.
That is a very small part. Trying to replace subscription fees with targeted ads was one of the greatest mistakes made by the publishing industry. Paywalls should have been put in place years ago, and journalists should always have focused on writing quality articles that people are willing to pay for instead of clickbait "experiences" meant to drive ad impressions.
Re: Mozilla hit with takedown request for anti-paywall addons
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is not a free speech issue at all, nor are the EU regulations free speech issues. The problem with these laws and their interpretation is that they target the wrong organizations and technologies. If a website is illegal, it needs to be taken down by police. Instead, idiot judges rule that certain DNS entries should be blocked. If you shouldn't be allowed to read some pay-walled journal, then the publisher has t…
I mostly agree with you, but the problem with illegals websites is often that they are illegal in a country but hosted in another. So you can’t really send your own police taking down servers in other countries. So for the DNS blocking it works because it blocks casual users of those website (I’m thinking torrent or streaming sites essentially). Of course when you know a bit how it works you use international DNS. An…
One country cannot police Internet, otherwise China will shut it down tomorrow. If a site is legal in the country where it is hosted, then it is legal and that's it, connecting to Internet assumes you obey this simple rule.
Re: Mozilla hit with takedown request for anti-paywall addons
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can if you use the Developer Edition. It's permanently disabled in the normal version because malware would piggyback on the browser to steal passwords and so on. Obviously Mozilla have no problem with people wanting to make their own extensions and so on.
Weird, I have 63.0.3 as far as I see the normal version and had no problem downloading and with that updating the November version of "bypass-paywalls" which was also affected from the releases page here: https://github.com/iamadamdev/bypass-paywalls-firefox/releas...
That means it's signed with Mozilla's signature. Actually, I think extensions can maybe be signed by Mozilla even if they're not on addons.mozilla.org.