
Bypass Paywalls Clean for Firefox - joker765
https://github.com/magnolia1234/bypass-paywalls-firefox-clean
======
Yaa101
I am not sure if I want to use this but I am happy to see an extension like
this.

Of course the sites in question are allowed to try and raise money from me,
and I feel I am allowed to try to dodge this.

More important however, I feel that these serious news sites with their
current behavior are contributing to the fake news proliferation as people
keep on reading news but since they cannot read serious news sites they are
forced to read facebook's and other crappy sources their gossipy, manipulative
and spammy propaganda.

I contribute money to The Guardian because of this, they vowed to keep their
serious news site open and reward them a contribution for it, I hope more
people will for the same reason.

------
kimi
I have mixed feelings about this. My feeling when faced with a paywall is to
simply click "back" \- if you don't want me to read your content, that's fine
to me. You don't expect to be reading a full-text (say) Harry Potter out of a
HN link, and I'm good with that, and I paid for my own copy. But a page that
looks like content and then won't show it is bait-and-switch, so no thanks.

~~~
WarOnPrivacy
I approve this observation.

------
messi843
Very usefull extension indeed. Quick fixes and updates. Adding custom sites is
a very interesting feature also.

------
joker765
Refactored extension (no google analytics)/add-on with lots of new sites, bug-
fixes, add custom sites and update-notification.

[https://github.com/magnolia1234/bypass-paywalls-firefox-
clea...](https://github.com/magnolia1234/bypass-paywalls-firefox-clean)

[https://github.com/magnolia1234/bypass-paywalls-chrome-
clean](https://github.com/magnolia1234/bypass-paywalls-chrome-clean)

~~~
_-___________-_
Did the original extension have Google Analytics embedded in it somehow?

~~~
joker765
The original Chrome extension does indeed.

------
josh_fyi
Is this based on the plug-in by iamadamdev?

~~~
joker765
Yes, major committer switched to clean version. Iamadamdev is just copying his
fixes lately ...

------
GekkePrutser
Thanks for making this! :D

------
fwn
What I really do not like about this fork is that it requests permission for
all sites while the original version from iamadamdev only requests permission
for sites the extension actually affects.

They briefly switched to all access (like the linked "bypass Paywalls Clean"
above) but came around pretty quick to go back to their less invasive model.

See this issue thread on the original repo:
[https://github.com/iamadamdev/bypass-paywalls-
firefox/issues...](https://github.com/iamadamdev/bypass-paywalls-
firefox/issues/488)

~~~
joker765
Permission for all sites is needed for adding custom sites. But I also saw a
request for a release with limited permissions though (loosing custom sites
feature).

~~~
joker765
New 2nd limited-permissions release was added. Customs sites are not working,
but now users have a choice.

------
paulintrognon
what's "clean" about this?

~~~
_-___________-_
Apparently the original extension has Google Analytics embedded in it:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22482333](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22482333)

~~~
fwn
I've just searched that and it appears that the Chrome version does have a GA
embed, the Firefox version does not.

Here is the issue someone filed for it on the original repo:
[https://github.com/iamadamdev/bypass-paywalls-
chrome/issues/...](https://github.com/iamadamdev/bypass-paywalls-
chrome/issues/293)

~~~
joker765
Adam's Firefox add-on supports fewer sites (even compared to his Chrome
extension) and has lots of bugs (even more after reduction of permissions) ...

~~~
fwn
I don't know. Advertising a fork as "clean"ed from something the original
project (the ff extension) never had feels a bit disingenuous, marketing-wise.

I'll stick with the old one as it requires less permissions. It seems to work
as expected.

You seem to be very eager to point out the superiority of the fork. Are you
involved in the project?

~~~
joker765
Well, goodluck sticking to an 'inferior' repo. It's a free world after all ;-)
Btw Clean postfix comes from Chrome extension. I'm just informing users of the
new repo which also has an limited permissions release (custom sites not
working then).

~~~
fwn
...so you are part of this project, right?

That's not a big deal, of course. Usually quite the opposite. But usually
people here don't try to deflect the question either, so..

It sounds a bit bitter as well. I'd love to see those projects ending up
competing in a productive way!

~~~
joker765
I'm an user and close observer of this repo. But you're done now 'judging' my
intentions?

~~~
fwn
I questioned your intentions, I didn't judge them - as I can't know them. I
did judge your responses though. That's a good thing and something we owe to
each other in a meaningful conversation.

~~~
joker765
Sure, disingenuous and bitter isn't anything like judging ;-) But goodluck
with Adam's repo, you clearly don't know what you're talking about.

~~~
fwn
> Sure, disingenuous and bitter isn't anything like judging

This was about your responses, not your intentions. That's also why I said I
judged your response, not your intentions.

Quote:

> I did judge your responses though.

How would I know your intentions anyway?

If you search for "good luck" in this HN thread you'll see what I'm referring
to.

~~~
messi843
If you're 'afraid' to move to a new and better add-on then don't blame the
messenger for it though.

------
exogeny
For as much as I'd like to receive the utility of such a thing, I don't see
how this is anything different than outright theft and therefore it should not
be something promoted by any means.

~~~
dusted
Clearly, if the websites didn't want you to read the article, they'd not send
the content to your computer.

I usually just F12 and remove the offending elements or their styling, so that
I can read the article. There's only two reasons that's possible: Either the
developer hated that they block information, and left a way through for
people, or they're incompetent. I like to assume the best in people and
believe the former to be the case.

~~~
ryanlol
Clearly, if the websites didn’t want you to download their customer db, they’d
not let you inject SQL queries!

~~~
tareqak
Is modifying the data that the server sends to my local machine as part of the
server’s expected operation, and then me not retransmitting that data a
problem? That’s how a user uses any accessibility feature (dark mode, screen
reader mode, magnification/zoom, etc).

~~~
ryanlol
>Is modifying the data that the server sends to my local machine as part of
the server’s expected operation, and then me not retransmitting that data a
problem?

Why not? It’s pretty clear that you’re knowingly doing this in order to exceed
authorized access. Why is this different from exploiting a vulnerability?

Accessibility features are not intended to defeat access controls.

~~~
tareqak
If that’s the case, then browsers allowing people to view and manipulate the
source of a web page (both initial download and XHR requests) are aiding in
that process. If the ask is to walk back decades of being able to do exactly
this sort of local manipulation of received data, then this form of the
Internet would be like cable or satellite television with permitted forms of
interactivity.

Why bring content to the Internet if there is desire to change the rules and
norms of how the Internet works? Why not roll a separate version of the
Internet with those desired rules? Yes, laws exist to protect copyright,
prevent theft, and forbid illegal access, but those laws are insufficiently
aware of how the Internet operates with respect to things like client-server
communication. In fact, the design of the Internet predates many (if not all)
of these laws, and the specifications of how the Internet works are a de facto
law expressing how clients and servers interact with one another. Should
lawmakers give requirements to the W3C to specify desired and undesired
operations on the Internet?

I genuinely ask these questions in good faith: they are simply follow-on
thoughts of mine from taking your point as a premise. If my ideas seems
extreme or exaggerated, then that’s simply where my mind goes first as opposed
to necessarily being criticism.

------
daw___
From a developer point of view, wouldn't it be more useful, ethical and
financially effective to reach out to these websites and teach them how to
implement paywalls right?

~~~
m-p-3
They want their articles to be indexed, but they don't want the end-user to
see the content. You cannot have both effectively.

