

Chrome Extension Gets You Past WSJ Paywall With One Click - bproper
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/pclnaginpkbignpbnkjojicpbilmieff#

======
zitterbewegung
Should be gets you past WSJ paywall for now. Eventually WSJ is going to figure
out how to block this. Then the cycle repeats the extension author figures out
how to get around that....

~~~
pbhjpbhj
From what I've read, rather quickly, they can block it but then they have to
either block google or cloak their content (present different versions to
GoogleBot and to the public which is not really allowed). So they choose
whether to make the content a gateway accessible from Google's SERPs or to
close it off.

------
AndrewWarner
"This extension can access: Your data on all websites. Your browsing history"

Standard, but still.

~~~
ianferrel
I ran into this complaint as feedback from a user for a Chrome extension I'm
developing that did something similar (inspected links for a certain kind of
content, then modified the page in question).

I could add a whitelist, but since it's implemented in my own extension, it
doesn't solve the trust problem. The fact that you can examine the source of
extensions doesn't help much.

I'd love for there to be a built-into-chrome per-extension whitelist and
blacklist, so that users could specify exactly which pages they give my
extension permission to run on. That way they could easily use my extension on
only the domains they want, and ensure that I'm not reading their webmail or
scraping their bank account website or anything malicious.

------
klbarry
This seems ethically wrong to me. Just because we have the technology to rob a
bank easily, should we? WSJ has a right to make a pay-wall for the content
they work hard to produce.

~~~
owenmarshall
The WSJ's paywall can be broken because they don't want to engage in cloaking
and risk the wrath of Google, et al.

So, if this extension is ethically wrong, is it also ethically wrong to Google
the title of the article and click on the Google result, thus subverting the
paywall?

If the WSJ wants to really charge, that's their prerogative -- but that means
no Google News or no search hits bringing people in. If they want to get more
eyes on their articles, that means some people are going to get in without
paying.

This is just a case of a company trying to have their cake and eat it too.

