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

Google unlocks 33% of publisher paywalls on July 30

whatsnewinpublishing.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 229 posts

Re: Google unlocks 33% of publisher paywalls on July 30

#51

Post by rkachowski »

kyledrake wrote: post #34

But how will we pay the NYT to try to drag the US into wars while David Brooks lectures debt-loaded millennials about work ethic and family values unless we let them continue to exploit a bug in web browsers? Monopolist news orgs are losing readership/revenue because they're terrible and refuse to change, not because of Chrome. Meanwhile other, better forms of journalism are thriving.

to be fair, they're not mutually exclusive.

It would be interesting to discover the stagnating effects of closing your doors to all but those willing to pay. Perhaps naively, I assume the majority of paying customers were dedicated readers before the paywalls went up. How are new users brought into the funnel of such an exclusive system?

Re: Google unlocks 33% of publisher paywalls on July 30

#52

Post by theamk »

"death of the metered paywall."?

I understand this is publisher-centric newspaper, but it's not like it was that hard to bypass it.

If I remember right, Chrome had "open guest window" functionality forever, which bypasses the detectors as wll -- and it only took 4 clicks (select all, copy, open guest window, paste-and-go)

Sure 4 click -> 1 click reduction is a big change, but it is hardly "death of metered firewall"

Re: Google unlocks 33% of publisher paywalls on July 30

#53

Post by hedora »

blackpowder12 wrote: post #5

I don’t get it, this stuff is already behind a paywall already. There’s no darkening of the internet of news if news is already paywalled. Looks like false controversy to me. All publishers have to do is demand a login and that’s it. Articles that are now behind a paywall will continue to do so. There’s no difference that I can understand outside of a slight adjustment in paywall protection. Seriously can anyone expl…

I think the author is upset because publishers want to have their cake and eat it too: It has long been google’s (and all other successful search engines’) policy that sites should present the same content to the web crawler and to human beings.

Soft paywalls are essentially a loophole in that (at least superficially) pro-consumer rule, and incognito blockers are apparently taking that loophole one step too far. This move will fix the issue by changing the browser instead of page ranks.

Here is an unfounded conspiracy theory: People noticed that regularly clearing cookies works better than incognito mode, so they were switching to that because of incognito blockers, and that presents an existential threat to Google’s cash cow.

I don’t believe the previous paragraph, but I really want an extension that nukes all browser state if my computer / device is idle for more than 4 hours. The only exceptions would be bookmarks and password management.

Re: Google unlocks 33% of publisher paywalls on July 30

#54

Post by eli »

qmarchi wrote: post #10

There are going to be people complaining about the new requirement to have an account to view content. To the publishers, you should _really_ use some kind of federated login. Google, Apple, Facebook, etc. but don't forget those who are willing to have a unique account.

As a publisher, there's absolutely no way I'm letting Google, Apple or Facebook manage the identity or control the authentication of my readers.

Re: Google unlocks 33% of publisher paywalls on July 30

#55

Post by pier25 »

kyledrake wrote: post #34

But how will we pay the NYT to try to drag the US into wars while David Brooks lectures debt-loaded millennials about work ethic and family values unless we let them continue to exploit a bug in web browsers? Monopolist news orgs are losing readership/revenue because they're terrible and refuse to change, not because of Chrome. Meanwhile other, better forms of journalism are thriving.

> Meanwhile other, better forms of journalism are thriving.

Such as?

Re: Google unlocks 33% of publisher paywalls on July 30

#56

Post by JeanMarcS »

Most of them (at least on mobile of what I know) already have a "Click here to see full article" button. This is where the paywall should be.

You start to read the article, it seems interesting ? You click (and then have to login, pay , or whatever).

Of course it might result of some sort of redacting bait, but why not try that ?

There's a french tech website [0] that does that, some article are free to read (mostly brief content), but those where journalist have spent time on it, you can only see the begining, and if you are a paying customer, you see the whole content.

You can pay from 0.99€ for a 48h test, so you can see if the content is worthy for you.

(not affiliated at all, I just think they do this the good way)

[0] https://www.nextinpact.com/

Re: Google unlocks 33% of publisher paywalls on July 30

#57

Post by jhall1468 »

edoceo wrote: post #46
FabHK wrote: post #33

> Without fail, the websites detected the intrusion attempt and prevented access to the content Using incognito mode in the browser to make it a bit harder to be tracked (without even blocking ads!) is "an intrusion attempt"? Excuse me? That's absurd language.

Right, because you're "intruding" where you're not supposed to. It's hyperbolic but not wholly inaccurate. Gotta get clicks!

I would argue they are intruding in that they are accessing information from my browser that they shouldn't have access to. If their website allows me to read an article they don't want me to by going to "www.nytimes.com" that's not an intrusion, that's poor gating on their part.

Re: Google unlocks 33% of publisher paywalls on July 30

#58

Post by amelius »

FabHK wrote: post #33

> Without fail, the websites detected the intrusion attempt and prevented access to the content Using incognito mode in the browser to make it a bit harder to be tracked (without even blocking ads!) is "an intrusion attempt"? Excuse me? That's absurd language.

The author was deliberately trying to use incognito mode to view the paywalled content, so this is imho rightfully called an intrusion attempt.

Of course, if you're just using incognito mode normally and happened to visit the same page, then it is not an intrusion attempt but just incognito browsing.

The whole point is that news websites can't distinguish between the two.

Re: Google unlocks 33% of publisher paywalls on July 30

#59

Post by reaperducer »

vorpalhex wrote: post #16
duxup wrote: post #6

I feel for sites that provide a service that want to bring users in, and still offer them some content up front for free. Having said that as a user I should be able to be anonymous at will too...

You can still offer people content for free and also not be defeated by incognito. Offer regular news articles for free, and make premium editorials and analysis require a (reasonably priced) subscription. But anecdotally, news orgs will never get my money while their subscription terms continue to be asinine. I will gladly give a newspaper $25 - $50 a year for access. I will not play these $X/week for odd week incre…

I will gladly give a newspaper $25 - $50 a year for access

The regional newspaper in my state is $25/6 months, which includes the physical Sunday paper and DRM-free downloadable PDFs of the newspaper every day that you can view on any device.

About a year ago I looked around at papers in other states, and the pricing and benefits were similar. It's only the super-premium papers that charge much more, but even the New York Times maxes out at $40/month for physical Sunday + digital. I'm OK paying a premium for the New York Times because I understand it's expensive to pay reporters and editors and photographers to travel to and live in cities around the world.

I think if the people who whine about "I'd pay $xx if the newspaper only did $yy" actually put their money where their mouths are, journalism (especially local) would be in a better place.

Post reply on HN