A Free Wall Street Journal Login, Now Gone | Hacker News Reader

A Free Wall Street Journal Login, Now Gone

buzzfeed.com

55 points_pius28 comments

So wait- thousands of people are openly confessing to "hacking" into protected computers via unauthorized access methods? Isn't this a criminal offense when perpetrated over state lines, a violation of the computer fraud and abuse act..? And how about fraud, conspiracy, illegitimately stealing services, and the like?

Meanwhile, OTHER people-- security researches, trolls, whoever-- some maybe have told the media about private data being shared on open links-- they get to go to jail.

It's almost like criminal laws are selectively enforced against people who corporate and powerful special interests don't like, and flagrantly ignored when broken by members of the establishment.

Almost like, yeah.

Much like white-collar crimes are punished way lighter in comparision with same-scale crimes of other sorts, even in the law itself.

This reminds me of the part in Batman Begins where Bruce Wayne uses anonymous shell companies to buy up Wayne Inc.'s shares while simultaneously being someone who brutalizes street criminals.

Great I just now find out this existed and it is too late!

No worries, there's an easier way to get through that doesn't require a login at all.

I use the aptly-named "innocuous Chrome extension"

I've paid for the digital subscription for 15 years. What's the aversion to more people paying? Perhaps the price would go down.

I took advantage of the Post and NYT's price reduction. Paying something like $10-$15 a month is pretty much a no-brainer. But at $30, I don't know if I'd read it enough to justify the cost.

I am on my third month as a paying subscriber, and it is worth it to me. I am lower-middle class, so my budget is pretty tight. I wouldn't mind a discount!

Because if it's important, I'll hear about it somewhere else. And if it's interesting, I can find other articles. Content is a dime a dozen these days, why would I pay for it?

When I pay, it is out of a sense of civic duty. Democracy requires journalism and journalism requires money.

Because good content is not a dime a dozen and most content is regurgitated content from real sites/journalists that do the work.

Classic tragedy of the commons.

A failed concept (though in that specific case it might be on point)

Because if you're not paying for it, someone else is paying for it to be shown to you.

You can pay for for it and still be served what someone else is paying for you to see.

I pay for the WSJ. They write quality articles and I like to know that I'm helping their staff put food on the table.

Because I don't want to pay for any kind of media that is owned by News Corp.

You presumably don't want to read it either then?

Presumably Murdoch, for one.

> Perhaps the price would go down

highly unlikely unless there is competition and if there is competition, you'd now have to pay two outlets to sustain the competition. There might be more valid factors to bring the price down, but this is the first I could think of.

Like this Chrome extension I made... :)

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/xray/dgkdfehohjdbm...

Recent tip posted on HN for how to get the text. Worked for me as of a few days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14389986

I have a lot of respect for WSJ for actually having a paywall. I find this a lot more honest than the ad-based "social contract".

Never will I understand the moral obligation to allow a third party to try to manipulate me into buying something unrelated that I don't need in order to be allowed to read what I actually want to read. If you don't want me to read something without paying, then do just that. Don't try to control and subvert my computer to show me ads.

A quirky article about free access to a paywall, but false claims that Sam Biddle is actually a journalist

Buzzfeed, seriously? I know they have some professional investigative journalism articles[0], but this certainly isn't one of them.

0.https://www.buzzfeed.com/heidiblake/the-tennis-racket?utm_te...

As someone who despises BuzzFeed this article was about something I didn't already know about and was both somewhat interesting and informative. I liked it. Not every piece needs to be investigative reporting nor a rehash of reddits front page. This was a good example of middle ground

Buzzfeed is in a similar land as Gawker was sometimes. Yeah, a lot of what they post is trash, but sometimes they talk about something everyone else isn't talking about.

We can make fun of Buzzfeed (I encourage it), but there's no reason to trash a reasonably interesting article solely based on its source.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com