[dreamdu5t]

Paywalls aren’t enshrined by any law. You’re misinformed.

the web is public, despite SV’s best attempts to subvert and exploit that. If you don’t want someone accessing information don’t publish it as a website that anyone can access.

[__d]

Does that apply to online banking as well?

If it's legitimate for a bank to hide your data behind a username and password, how is a journalism-provider any different?

[cipherzero]

Does your bank allow your account to be indexed by google?

[__d]

No.

So is that's your fundamental issue with a paywall? Anything that's available to Google (and Bing, DDG, etc) should also be available to you at no cost?

Restating that from the other perspective: if the information isn't universally available for no cost, it cannot be looked up via a search engine?

[cipherzero]

Uh yeah. I'm assuming you know how HTTP works, but if not, _basically_ you send a request to GET content, and the server makes a decision on what/whether or not to return. If that user shouldn't be able to see the content because they haven't logged in then its up to the server to decide.

It's crazy to send them the content but tell them not to read it... back to your example would you expect your bank to do that? Here's all the account details and transactions but oops thats not your account. I'm guessing no, you'd hold your bank to a high technical standard.

To be clear, if newspapers/journalists want to work out some special agreement with google (or partner/agreed upon indexers) so their requests are authenticated so that only they have access to the content - i think that is a better solution then pay walls and sending the article and saying "don't read this please"

[__d]

I agree: it's a crazy strategy. And you're correct: if my bank sent my details to someone with a half-baked attempt to prevent them accessing the data they were given, I'd be getting a new bank.

But regardless of how crazy this scheme is, I don't think it justifies taking advantage of that craziness to unwrap such content.

I think it's reasonable to question the approach of banning the plugin too: the problem is the users' choice to use the plugin, not making it available. But ... when there's no justifiable use for the plugin, and the author clearly intends it to be used to view unauthorized content ... I can see that it's an attractive strategy to just ban it.

[realusername]

because there's no username and passwords for paywalls...

[__d]

The ones I'm thinking of (eg. NYTimes, WaPo, WSJ, etc) are all username/password.

What kind of paywall are you thinking of?

[cipherzero]

How do you think this add on was working? do you think it was brute forcing the password of all the sites you were thinking of?

[__d]

I'm less concerned with the implementation than I am with the principle.

In principle, I have reservations about exposing content to search engines but then requiring payment to read it. Especially if it's non-trivial to filter out the sources that require payment.

But a plugin which works around an attempt to restrict visibility of content to those who've paid for it ... I thnk the intent here is wrong.

I think it's ok to have information that's only accessible to a restricted set of viewers.

It's not that it's not possible. It's not that the implementations aren't dumb. It's that the principle of "if I want it, and I can do it, then it's ok" doesn't really hold up, IMO.

[realusername]

They just bypass the paywalls by pretending they are google, there's no username or password involved.

[_em6m]

Okey. So how about respecting the right of those who use paywalls to get money for the content they create?

Just because something is on the internet doesn't give you the holly right of getting it for free.

[m52go]

> Just because something is on the internet doesn't give you the holly right of getting it for free.

Correct. Others have the holy right to charge, and I have the holy right to try getting around it.

[alexandernst]

Yeah. That's the point. I won't go into the subject of discussing if that is legal or not, but for sure it's not ethical.

That said, you're free to try to get around easy "protections", Mozilla is free to take down your methods for doing that.

[m52go]

You could make moral arguments for and against the companies seeking these protections and even Mozilla itself.

Ultimately businesses will always ruthlessly try to make more money, and software will ruthlessly seek a more efficient user experience.

Often these objective clash. Spotify is the obvious example that seemed to offer a solution in the music space. But we have yet to discover such a solution in online publishing.

[_em6m]

Bypassing paywalls is a "more efficient user experience"? Wow... that's a whole new level...

[thatfunkymunki]

It pretty easily meets the definition of efficiency- it allows users to do more, in less time, and utilizing less resources.

[austincheney]

> Just because something is on the internet doesn't give you the holly right of getting it for free.

Why not?

[alexandernst]

The same reason why I can't just get your lawnmower even if it's visible, in your backyard.

[austincheney]

A better comparison is dropping my lawnmower off in your backyard, teasing you with access, and then complaining when you touch it.

You cannot reasonably expect to protect or restrict content with a flawed understanding of the medium in which that content is conveyed.

If you don’t want me access it don’t put it on the web.

[_em6m]

Your lawnmower (your website) is in your backyard (your servers). If I go to your backyard (your servers) and I get/use your lawnmower (your website), I'm 1) trespassing privet property (the paywall) and 2) using something that I'm not allowed to use (your lawnmower, your website that requires me to pay for the content).

No matter how easy is it for me to go into your backyard (bypass your paywall), it's still an offense.

[austincheney]

If I can download your content by simply changing my user-agent identifier you don't have any security. In this context the backyard is the local computer and web browser. The lawnmower is the content in question. It is deposited and there. If you don't want the user to access your content then don't drop it into their backyard. The user isn't trespassing by accessing content left in their property.

More simple, if you don't want the user to have it then don't give it to them.

[cipherzero]

In my opinion, the problem is because content owners/producers want a double standard. They want people to pay for access but they also want there content indexed so people can find it. So if this tool makes it so that the site treats me as an indexer than so what?

Have you ever been in a conversation where someone talks about something and you said “hey I read this cool article on that, let me send it to you.” If so, guess what - you were the search engine for that conversation. Should you then have access to view the non-paywalled content?

So yeah, I have no issue with this add on. If they didn’t want the double standard - to allow free access for some and not others - it is easily possible and in their full control to prevent add ons like these (think of any admin site or service for which you have to login before seeing/do anything.)

Content producers have a choice and they’re choosing to be bullies. I have no moral or ethical qualms when it comes to dealing with bullies or double standards.

Just my two cents.