Show HN: A Chrome extension to get around the WSJ paywall
wsjwalljump.weebly.com
wsjwalljump.weebly.com
The fact that they also make most if not all of the content available on a "complimentary" basis via Google suggests that they do value occasional visits from non-subscribers.
However if millions of non-subscribers were to install a paywall avoidance app and access the full content on a daily basis, this would probably violate the spirit of "occasional".
I used to subscribe to the WSJ year after year, since about 1999 when they charged $79/year. When it climbed over $120/year, I gritted my teeth and resubscribed, because I still valued the content. But $28.99/month is ridiculous, and I suspect they only get that from larger corporate accounts that have negotiated volume discounts and such. Everyone else either googles the articles or has given up.
To my mind, it's better to have high readership numbers, e.g. Facebook with 1.5 billion free subscribers, versus high subscription rates and a limited readership, but I have no idea how their business model works.
However I can agree with that kind of behaviour against business monopolies (for example microsoft few years ago, before gDocs and OpenOffice) because they're not playing by the rules (so they deserve it).
But in this case: I can see everyday what "free newspapers" (using advertising & students copying Reuters newsfeed) did to "real newspapers": now it seems here, in France, that journalists just don't have any time to check, to think, to explain... to do their job in fact. When they have a paid job. And, at the end, it's the information freedom for everybody that has been hurt.
I didn't think about the implications of releasing it, and now I regret it. I have changed the page to apologize and remove the download.
I put the source on GitHub if anyone is curious about intercepting headers in Chrome. I still think it's useful for the source to be out there for the small number of cases where a well-meaning person really needs to access the WSJ without paying for some reason.
If anyone from the WSJ is on here: my bad.
If you ask me, I think this was a completely unnecessary and definitely self-interested move from Google, but since most here on HN bought Google's narrative and thought it's a good idea "because security" (with zero data to back it up), and didn't speak out against it, now we're stuck with this.
Having to enable Developer Mode and drag and drop an extension was more than enough "security". They didn't have to limit them to the Chrome store, just like they don't limit much more complex and more dangerous Android apps from being installed from other places, when you check the Unknown sources button.
Now try to add this extension in the Chrome store, and watch how you're promptly deleted by Google. And now hopefully people will understand why Google's latest move was completely self-interested and also unnecessary security wise. It was designed specifically to reject this sort of extensions from working on Chrome.
One more thing to ponder about: Even Apple doesn't completely ban native apps from running from other sources. It still gives you the option to install Mac apps from other sources. Chrome doesn't (anymore).
EDIT: I just followed the installation instructions and it worked fine. It says "Not From Chrome Store" but it's still enabled.
On recent versions of Chrome you cannot install any non webstore CRX, developer mode or not.
The second is much more of a hassle and didn't work for me. It involves using group policy to whitelist the extension.
Unfortunately, there are still people who think journalist should work for free. Can you imagine your boss saying to you " great work however, as nobody is paying I cant pay you". Also as previously discussed if the only revenue is add revenue who then controls the content ?