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

Mozilla hit with takedown request for anti-paywall addons

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 405 posts

Re: Mozilla hit with takedown request for anti-paywall addons

#41

Post by Reason077 »

betterunix2 wrote: post #38
Reason077 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Were subscription fees ever the primary revenue source for print newspapers and magazines? I was always under the impression that the majority of their revenue came from ads.

Re: Mozilla hit with takedown request for anti-paywall addons

#43

Post by [deleted] »

Angostura wrote: post #12
decasteve wrote: post #5

This 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.

[deleted]

Re: Mozilla hit with takedown request for anti-paywall addons

#44

Post by wpietri »

Angostura wrote: post #12
decasteve wrote: post #5

This 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.

It's obviously not a "request" if they're making legal threats. And it's not payment they're demanding, it's the ability to track anybody who visits their site, whether or not you agree to be tracked. And it's not part of any social contract I agreed to; the (very short) history of the web is an ongoing negotiation. Paywalls were invented this decade. This plugin is part of that negotiation.

Browsers already have a mechanism for authorizing access to content. Many mechanisms, really. If a company chooses to use an unreliable mechanism, I don't think we are morally obligate to roll over and do what they want.

Re: Mozilla hit with takedown request for anti-paywall addons

#46

Post by giornogiovanna »

shaki-dora wrote: post #10
decasteve wrote: post #5

This 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.

Would you make the same point for an extension that allows users to easily participate in DDOS attacks? Edit: the link, for the willfully dense, is that some protocol specification does not imply its users’ acceptance of any and all (ab)uses possible. It’s completely different only in that you like one but not the other.

Uh... yes? It's not very relevant, but I guess if someone was making some kind of hacktivist extension that did something like that, I wouldn't just take it down from the marketplace.

Re: Mozilla hit with takedown request for anti-paywall addons

#47

Post by kibwen »

AdrianB1 wrote: post #42

So I am allowed to use Developer Tools in any browser and look directly at the HTML, but not use an extension to do the work for me? What is preventing me to View Source for a "paywalled" page?

DMCA takedown for developer tools coming in 3, 2...

Re: Mozilla hit with takedown request for anti-paywall addons

#48

Post by realthing »

JohnStrangeII wrote: post #15
realthing wrote: post #2

here 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…

Yes, but you are missing my point. Link tax is not censorship in and of itself, but it does hinder the sharing of information, the cornerstone of the "information highway".

Removing a plugin, or any tooling for that matter, is akin to censorship, in that it silences a computational action. Someones voice may not have been censored, but their tooling was removed by force by the powers that be.

Re: Mozilla hit with takedown request for anti-paywall addons

#49

Post by the8472 »

totfz wrote: post #17

This 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.

I would even say mozilla invited this to happen by assuming sole authority which addons can get installed. They created a single point of failure. Now that SPOF gets exploited.

Re: Mozilla hit with takedown request for anti-paywall addons

#50

Post by totfz »

TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #40
Krasnol wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, but Mozilla will refuse to sign extensions that are not hosted in their app store.
Post reply on HN