Show me a 10ft paywall, I’ll show you a 12ft ladder
12ft.io
12ft.io
I wouldn't say this "justifies" a service like 12ft.io, but such services are inevitable.
Yes, because I will subscribe to your site because I want to read one article on it. Next, supermarket wants to sell me a caw instead of carton of milk I came for.
Suppose someone puts free stuff on the sidewalk and says, "provided free-of-charge to clowns; everyone else $5".
Then if I put on a clown nose and take the stuff, I'm completely in the right.
If the purveyor does not agree then they can:
1. Not put the stuff on the public sidewalk, but offer it inside their store only.
2. Have the cashier, validate that the the customer holds a clowning license issued by the state and is a member in good standing of some clowning association.
The argument is not at all anyone is entitled to the stuff no matter what, even in the face of protective measures like (1) and (2). The argument is that if some server discriminates what information it put out to the unauthenticated public according to some superficial browser client indications that are easily donned by any client, then it's perfectly fair game for anyone to manipulate those indications in order to be served any/all thus available versions of the content.
If that doesn't reflect the purveyor's intent, then they have a clear technological avenue for securing the protected content to authenticated users only.
Not that I particularly agree. I just don’t want to see ads or pay for content.
We work on a number of major publications that 12ft does not, including NYT, WSJ, and several others. We have a full list of supported publications here: [link redacted]
edit: my mistake - i see you're building a local client, not a remote cache. still, i wonder how you see this playing out in the future.
In the near future, we're planning to expand into more general adblocking; we're currently focused on growth & there's still a lot of internal discussion happening, but we're most seriously considering a Spotify-style or micropayments model... very early days though - we just officially launched last week!
They had a micro payment system but could not get it to work? Seems only Dutch now, but were active in the US as well, if I remember correctly.
I don't really like that Apple has such privileges on my machine, but trusting paywall blocker with them seems absurd.
That's a very understated way to say "we run stuff on your computer that require root privileges". It is explained later but there's no such thing as too many warnings about running 3rd party code under root on my computer.
> If you’re a very security-minded individual (or you use your computer for very sensitive tasks),
Who doesn't? Like, accessing my bank account? Accessing my email, where my bank account would sent 2FA/password reset? Uploading my ID photo to one of the dozens sites now that require that? I'm not sure we know each other well enough so I'd entrust you access to all that. Not even if that allows me to read Vanity Fair. I guess I'm one of those "very" individuals?
> Incoggo adds a file to your system’s sudoers.d folder that whitelists specific commands from requiring a sudo password to perform
Erm, does that mean any other tool would be free to use those commands under root now? Probably not the best idea.
> Incoggo also installs a trusted root certificate in your system keystore
Do I understand right that this gives it full untraceable MITM capability to any site I visit? I remember the government of Kazakhstan tried to do that to their citizens. They did it in a stupid way. They should have promised all citizens free access to Wall Street Journal.
> If these are show-stopper issues for you
Unfortunately, they kind of are.
Edit: Just retested. Went to nytimes.com, clicked on a story, got the paywall. Turned on FF reader mode and reloaded. Blam, there is the whole article.
This is so very easy to do correctly in the back end, such that without an authenticated session from a paying user, the full content simply does not leave the server.
I think they are leaving it easily bypassable on purpose. They know that some "piracy" is beneficial, like it is in music. The paywall has to have finely tuneed "difficulty dial", such that they get revenue, without throttling the exposure (which will negatively act on the same revenue).
A "Fort Knox" paywall is probably not revenue-maximizing, that is to say.
It no longer works on some sites like nyt - The site was offline for a day because of a legal notice.
[1] https://global.americanexpress.com/card-benefits/detail/digi...
sounds very not-free.
You are correct that it is not "free" but rather "included at no additional charge" should you choose to elect it.
The ad-popup actually mentions that signing up for a free account with them bypasses the restriction, I'm not sure to what degree but I have noticed it works whenever I log in.
Furthermore, your AmEx option is not free, and for those who would rather not support an organization like the NYT, is not an option either. For those who don't even want a free account with NYT either, Private Browsing mode in Safari on iOS with AdGuard works every time.
At least with Audible, your getting books from a real diversity of authors.
From the perspective of this text-only browser user, there is no "paywall" there are just complaints from people who are using browsers that run JavaScript.
From where I sit, it looks like JavaScript is the problem, not "paywalls". Specifically, browsers that run it automatically and web developers that use it irresponsibly. It seems the JS interpreter is not in the browser for the user to write and run her own scripts to improve her UX but for website operators to run their own scripts, without any prior selection or approval from users, in order to benefit their own interests.
Allow me to explain. A true access control would require an approved source IP, a password or something similar. Thus, this so-called "paywall" is not an access control to exclude non-subscribers. It is more like some sort of deliberate annoyance, forced hassle as a weasel-like form of "marketing". It is implemented using JavaScript. The question to ask is whether NYT could and would carry out the same sort of intentional annoyance without the use of JavaScript. They probably could, yet the fact is they don't. And so we are left to wonder, perhaps they wouldn't, even if they could. JavaScript clearly enables, and seems to me may actually inspire, shenanigans like this "paywall". (Why annoy non-subscribers. "Because we can. It's easy.") Take JavaScript away from web developers and what would happen. Would they reimplement this "paywall" in another way, without using JavaScript. How easy would that be, compared to using JavaScript.
What we have now is NYT 1. collecting data on non-subscribers, 2. showing them ads (thus potentially producing revenue from non-subscribers) and 3. annoying non-subscribers (after collecting data on them and showing ads) to try to get them to subscribe. #3 is a new low.
Turn off JavaScript and this does not work. Or use a client that does not support JavaScript and one never even knows this is happening to other users. I only know about a NYT "paywall" because I read about it. I have never experienced myself. I can read the entire online edition fast, in one go. Apparently the only reason is because I am not using a browser released by an entity that collects data on users, a browser that runs other peoples' code, more or less indiscriminantly, by default. This leads me to have a different perspective than the users of popular browsers. The popular browsers and JavaScript seem like they are the problem, or at least a fundamental part.
curl -A "" -HAccept https://12ft.io/api/show-ad?q=https://example.net
curl -A "" -HAccept https://12ft.io/api/proxy?q=https://example.netUseful, e.g., for users who prefer clients that cannot run Javascript.
Speaking of, I highly recommend virtualpostmail. I've used them as my personal mailing address for years now. I did a USPS change of address once, and now any time I move, I no longer have to update my address with anyone. Also, I get PDFs of my letters in my inbox, and can reship them to wherever I happen to be that week, even if I'm away from home.
Extra protip - I’d you’re traveling, they can ship to any FedEx office store and “hold for pickup” and most full-service hotels will receive packages for you, even a day or two in advance.
It's being announced by Amazon, has nearly 100k other domains associated with it [0] and a <3ms ping for me in Europe so I think this is just CloudFront.
Then, importantly, set expectations for reach and profits appropriately and use relevant advertising to their services/topics which also has value, not stupid algorithm/'targeted' advertising.
It's not easy, but working to actually build trust and value is far better than joining the race to the bottom.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norfolk_Southern–Gregson_Stree...
The showing of a special site to the search bot to add noise to search results and waste my time, I happily bypass with a clear conscience.
Journalism is not easy and journalists currently don’t have any other way to collect income other than publishing their work through a medium.
For some of us we afford to give away work for free because our universities (work=scientific publications) or our employer (work=open source software) pay for for it to be free for their own reasons and because they have the funding to do so.
We don’t want journalism to have questionable sources of funding, just so that we click open the stories more easily.
We want journalism to be profitable by direct funding from the consumers.
Ads was the unfortunate middle ground.
But taking Ads away will only push media towards getting funded by forces that exclusively want to control the media.
TLDR: pay your content creators even if it seems tedious to you
Google (or any search engine) don’t give an F about the work of a journalist.
We do.
Don't you think it's a little late for that with Corporate Media?
https://www.bardeen.ai/posts/how-to-bypass-a-paywall#bardeen.
Disclaimer: I’m the co-founder of Bardeen.
Would be cool if it returned a simple text page saying "I see what you did there."
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/bypass-paywal...
Probably means that I won't use it as everything else gets bypassed with this addon https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/bypass-paywal...
That addon actually gives me an archive.org link to read the times article in full.
https://www.autonews.com/sales/us-dec-sales-seen-falling-ret...
However, the easiest trick to bypass paywalls in my opinion is to switch to ‘reader’ mode in your browser. This works for most news sites I visit, including NYT. There are exceptions, but I reader mode should be your go to first attempt if you ask me.
It’s built into every browser now, and if it doesn’t work, then check archive.org. Using these two methods alone will get you most anything you want to read.
I'd also point out an alternative: https://github.com/iamadamdev/bypass-paywalls-chrome
And adding a fork that's been updated more consistently for some sites I use: https://gitlab.com/magnolia1234/bypass-paywalls-chrome-clean
after some digging on the repo: https://gitlab.com/magnolia1234/bypass-paywalls-chrome-clean...
There is a wellknown paywall-cleaning browser extension and it fails to bypass a lot. Issue list here: https://gitlab.com/magnolia1234/bypass-paywalls-firefox-clea...
If people were hitting a hard paywall, Google tended to penalize the result. A lot of sites ended up with a looseness in the paywall basically to ensure people landing from a search result got "first page free" style visibility.
I feel like the key is to realize the difference between "news" and "editorial" content. A lot of "news" is begging for a race to the bottom-- I can get the latest Covid numbers, sportsball score, or the fact a water main burst on 12th street from 5 local TV channels or two or three newspaper-format sites. You can't really compete by providing a premium product for those things. On the other hand, the editorial content-- the op/eds, the bespoke columns-- that's where you can justify a paywall.
What's the alternate business model they're supposed to use?
You can ban sandwich shops in your city, and there wont be a viable model for sandwich shops.
No one banned sandwich shops (or paywalled newspapers) in this context, though.
The problem is that some "sandwich shops" wants to give out free samples (i.e. keeping paywall open for bots and other clients that don't run js), because they know it's good for business, and then complain that people are taking free samples.
Well... if this "handing out free samples" approach is not working out for them, it is up to them (and not everyone else) to figure out something that works for them.
If not enough people are willing to pay full-price for their (I assume) high-quality sandwhiches, and much rather source their sandwhiches from somewhere else (if there are no free samples to be had), that's not anyone's problem but their own.
You're making it seem like there is some regulamentory issue that prevents them from having/deploying a successful business model, when that's not the case: the problem is something else.
Consumers saying come up with a business plan that gives me want for free in return for nothing are in for disappointment
The old business model failed when people stopped buying physical newspaper copies and this is what they came up with. It was unpopular from the start and lead to many papers struggling, so I'm sure they've thought about alternatives harder than the average social media user. I'm all ears in case you have a good idea though. Remember the goal is getting money to pay the journalists and other expenses.
In short: current site monetization tactics are objectionable and deserve to be thwarted. Rather than huffing about people who block ads, publishers and advertisers should consider that an incentive to come up with something better.
The very same people bypassing these paywalls will complain about clickbait and poor journalism.
Ads/trackers are a different beast entirely. Sure, they also provide funding, but it’s a model that’s rooted in obnoxiousness, invasiveness, and disrespect. That approach needs to be punished, and I think loss of revenue is entirely justifiable; even beneficial, if it incentivizes more reasonable and respectful monetization strategies.
Basically, as long as search traffic is more important to publishers, Google will have an upper hand.
If paywalls are in our future, getting there through Google should not be.
By working around paywalls, you are asking publishers to not mess the search results or not to give Google preferential treatment (depending on your angle).
Call me a cynic but they probably just want you to pay for their journalism. Looks like a cool product, and it's also probably piracy.
I suspect Medium.com and Quora to be in the same boat.
You can't search for stuff on your company's intranet, can you? Or your private bank statement?
If someone wants to make something private, it's definitely their right to do so. But they should not attempt to mislead me by offering it as a search result of the public web.
Google is not your private search engine. There is a lot of paid content that Google cannot index and thus search for you: that's a natural order for me.
Now, I am fine if Google shows those results for you. But it also shows it for me, and I ain't a subscriber.
Now, I understand Google is not what it used to be, so it's simply a bad search engine for me. Writing is on the wall, though: they are losing the geek out there, and while they won't be gone anytime soon, they are Microsoft of the 90s (living off of their monopoly).
Perhaps there are search engines that do some of that legwork and you'd prefer to use those, or you could use some of the advanced search techniques available on Google. But suggesting they remove any listings of subscriber-only material seems impractical -- also not helpful to the many people who discover content through search results.
I agree with your last comment:
they are Microsoft of the 90s (living off of their monopoly)It's just that it shouldn't be presented different content than what I can see browsing to the page myself: if both Google and me can only see abstracts, that's fine to me too.
If not, I am happy to use paywall-avoiding sites so publishers would reduce power Google has over them sooner.
Basically, it is my initiative to drive behaviour that I want in the market: either offer content for free, or restrict commercial search engines too.
If you want to see search results on stuff only you have access to, that should be a special feature by Google: you let it log in using your credentials and crawl away.
I don't have access to it, so I'd rather get results that I care about. This is SEO at its worst, masking results I do want to artificially inflate their ranking.
Maybe I am not looking for a NYT article on it, but instead a wikipedia page. Or a university's history department coverage. Or an actual scientific study. Guess which one will rank higher today while having less objective information?
Now guess why that is? Artifical SEO for paywalled content.
My go-to is readability mode, Instapaper, and turning JS off.