
Incognito no more: Publishers close loopholes as paywall blockers emerge - joegahona
https://digiday.com/uk/subscription-publishers-close-loopholes-paywall-blockers-emerge/
======
hamilyon2
Wait, what? Is content shadowing now ok with Google?

I always thought that content presented to Google bot should be very very
close to what user see when they click link. And if not, Google penalize
website hard. Has that changed?

I mean, if rule still stands, than news websites will show up in search
results with keywords "subscription" and "article". Instead of "USA" and
"brexit".

If content shadowing is ok now, that gives spammers a free ride.

~~~
lysp
It is a constant annoyance to me when my mobile google app suggests
"interesting stories" to me which end up being paywall locked.

~~~
a3n
Google's just trying to help their customers succeed.

------
ProfessorLayton
Tangentially related, but I find it pretty frustrating that websites can
detect private browsing to begin with, when all I really wanted is to not have
a browsing session leave a trace on my phone/computer when I'm done.

It doesn't help that on iOS, deleting browser data is 4 menus deep, and
there's a bug that keeps surfacing allows this to happen:
[https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1128887578541797376/pu/...](https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1128887578541797376/pu/vid/590x1280/VoOHN21RzB_U47ZC.mp4?tag=9)

Worse, deleting browser data _turns off_ private browsing if you previously
had it enabled.

~~~
suspectdoubloon
I guess for test on iOS would be to see if you could store something to
localStorage as that doesn't work in safari would be one way to tell of your
in incognito mode.

~~~
0xADEADBEE
It would be nice if there were an app like CookieAutoDelete [0] for mobile
Safari (or desktop Safari if Mozilla keep misbehaving!). You can disable
cookies but that's trivially detectable. I guess it's trivial to detect, but
it needn't be; something akin to Mozilla's Containers [1] on mobile Safari
would be a step in the right direction.

[0] - [https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/cookie-
autode...](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/cookie-autodelete/)

[1] - [https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/multi-
account...](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/multi-account-
containers/)

------
TurningCanadian
The only way to have free content is if the user is the product being sold.
That's detrimental to both the user and to the society that they live in if it
affects how they make decisions. (Which is an integral part of news)

I simply don't understand how anyone could be frustrated with a publication
making it harder to get content for free. It's what we must accept if we don't
want the government to provide the news.

~~~
sgift
There's also the Guardians way: Ask, but don't block. Despite all the cries
that this could never work Guardian had a positive revenue in their last
yearly report. It depends on people doing the right thing, if they can afford
it and if not cross-finance it with the people who can.

~~~
inapis
> Guardian had a positive revenue in their last yearly report.

Positive revenue for the first time since 1998.

While admirable and noble, I find that this strategy is fraught with its own
risks. Your company/product becomes fragile to financial headwinds in absence
of a steady revenue.

------
millstone
I came here to make the point that there was too much friction in subscribing
and logins across devices. To prove it I checked a major publisher and - wow,
ApplePay, TouchID, done. Five seconds and I'm a subscriber, $8 a month. And
iCloud sent the password from my MBP to my iPhone, probably Google-users get
the same or better.

I checked a second publisher and it has slightly more friction, asking for my
name, but still makes payment much easier than before.

There was a time where digital was about upselling print, but to my surprise
publishers seem to be doing things right. I just now got two subscriptions, it
feels good to support journalism.

------
winningcontinue
Washington Post and NYT are what the President of the United States says is
fake news. At the same time, they're limiting the audience of their coverage
to subscribers only beyond a few free articles a month. I wonder how ordinary
people who can't/won't pay for subscriptions will receive their information to
make up their minds after this retreat.

~~~
mr_toad
> I wonder how ordinary people who can't/won't pay for subscriptions will
> receive their information to make up their minds after this retreat.

Don’t we already know the answer to that? They’ll get their “news” from their
“friends” on Facebook.

------
scanny
Some ~large~ sites are still quite far behind tech wise in stopping free
reading. What do these bigger papers use?

My national site just had a `class="premium-content"` that you needed to
delete to bypass it.

They upgraded, and now all you have to do is take the `class="QUnWjUZnTonf"`
for each paragraph, and remove it.

(e.g.
[https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&object...](https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12231625)
)

I wonder who is in charge of these sorts of things, you would think that if
you are going to block people off you would put more effort into things.

~~~
0xADEADBEE
I've worked in a few NZ dev shops and rigor isn't in my experience, high on
the agenda! I also had no idea NZ Herald even had a subscription model, so
thank you.

------
docker_up
Is there a way to remove publications from Google News sources? If I can't
read the article for free, then I don't want to see their links ever.

~~~
ac29
"Sources and topics you see less of" in Settings can block sources.

------
bubblethink
nytimes routinely publishes filler articles on improving privacy, security
etc. And yet, if you open nytimes in something like firefox focus/klar, it
will block your view with a giant "You are in private mode; sign in" banner.
Yeah, no shit nytimes. If I wanted to sign in, I wouldn't be in private mode.

To anyone who still wants to persist on mobile, firefox with ublock origin
works. It runs like a dog though, partly because of firefox on mobile and
partly because of nytimes' bloat.

This is also why amp isn't going away anywhere. Real news just fails on many
levels. For a paid product, they really punish their users in so many ways.

~~~
breakingcups
Firefox Mobile with uBlock origin runs fast on my cellphone, faster than
Chrome without adblock.

------
atemerev
The problem and the solution look obvious: there are many news sources,
everybody wants to get paid, people don’t want to pay for all of them, yet
still not content from getting the news from a single source.

We have solved this problem for music and movies already, Spotify and Netflix
are Silicon Valley poster children. Now we just need to build a news / text
media aggregator along the same lines.

~~~
inapis
>there are many news sources, everybody wants to get paid, people don’t want
to pay for all of them, yet still not content from getting the news from a
single source.

Don't pay for all of them and BE CONTENT with getting news/information from a
small set of outlets you want. Abundance of choice doesn't mean that you have
to try out everything under the sun. This is consumer expectations being
irrational after an era of free ad-sponsored internet articles. Given a median
US income of 60k, most people within this group can definitely budget for 3-4
publications annually. Go lower and people can pay for 2-3 publications. Go
lower and you probably don't have time for reading news and have more pressing
matters in life. We are no longer primed to pay for content so even paying 10
USD a month is jarring experience for most.

The problem is less of the market and more of the consumer. We went from a
lack of information to __information overabundance __with the advent of
internet, google and free articles. Now we _want_ to read/watch/listen to
everything which is physically impossible. We _think_ we want to read a couple
of articles from every other site but _most of us_ (HN/reddit may be vocal
exceptions) end up reading a decent chunk of articles from a small number of
sites. I am not pulling these numbers out of thin hair. I am building a much
more powerful alternative to pocket/instapaper and these trends are coming
from the first set of beta users (albeit small but for which I have no reason
to believe also doesn't pan out at significant numbers) from finance, tech and
other industries. Even I was surprised when I ran my own set of links and saw
that 95% of them were coming from a set of 5-6 publishers at best whose
combined annual subscriptions were north of just 200 USD - something I'm happy
to and already do pay for.

~~~
atemerev
It is very inconvenient to watch over these 5-6 individual subscriptions,
especially when I am not interested in 90% of their content (but the content I
_am_ interested in can come from anywhere).

It is not about money, it is about friction.

------
AlexCoventry
Incognito mode is still working fine for WaPo, in my hands (chromium/ubuntu
16.04.) There are people in the HN thread she links to substantiate the claim,
which also report it's working fine for them.

------
iamnothere
This trend has been great for my productivity. Any time one of these comes up,
I just close the tab. So far I haven't felt like I've missed out on anything
important!

If you manage to find a trustworthy news source, support it with cash to make
sure it sticks around. If they break your trust, revoke your cash (and be sure
to let them know why). That's the only way things will improve.

------
0xADEADBEE
It's an interesting development because the amount of people who actively seek
to bypass paywalls must be negligible. While it's mostly second nature to a
large swathe of the HN crowd, devtools/private browsing/Google-refe[r]rer
plays aren't exactly typical browsing tricks for the average person. I can
only extrapolate that it's either it's either a) a bid to be seen to be doing
something to higher-ups or b) an attempt to garner subscriptions from the tech
crowd with the nous to bypass a paywall ue to low numbers [0]. The latter
seems unlikely on account of actual conversions and the former seems myopic.
I'd love to be a fly on the wall at some of these meetings!

[0] - [https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/01/business/media/new-
york-t...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/01/business/media/new-york-times-
earnings-subscribers.html)

------
astazangasta
News content should be bundled like streaming services. I am never going to
pay $1 to each news site i read. I would pay $8 to read any news site.

~~~
joegahona
Apple News kinda does this, and they have a Free and + version.

------
Haga
Next stage.. Piracy prevention as one copies articles and republished.. Every
incapable Industrie from movies to music dies the same insane way.

------
terrycody
Anyone know how to bypass the "Medium" pay wall?? Help!

------
40acres
Publishing is in a similar position to streaming, but I find that I can be
satisfied with one publication subscription as opposed to streaming where I
have 3-4 subscriptions.

You can remain very much in the loop by getting a subscription at one of the
major 'centrist' general newspapers (NYT, WaPo).

------
arthurfm
Are we going to end up in a situation where the only news sites without a
paywall are those filled with sensationalist and/or inaccurate articles and
Z-list celeb gossip like the Daily Mail [1]?

[1] [https://www.dailymail.co.uk/](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/)

------
headsoup
I think the business model associated with these paywalls is what is flawed.
I'm not going to subscribe to a site just because I viewed a number of
articles if I didn't perceive them to be high value.

They must demonstrate value for money, and this problem seems to present
evidence that the perceived value isn't there.

------
apple4ever
I have not read a Washington Post article in a long time since they made it
harder to bypass their paywall. Anytime it comes up, I just close the tab.

I don’t mind supporting journalism (and I pay for two local papers) but I do
not like the heavy handed tactics of this bigger sites.

~~~
bryanrasmussen
ok I do the same thing but it isn't because if they let me read the articles
for free then I would pay them.

~~~
lixtra
I tipped for the guardian in the past and their sales are up[1].

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19799893](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19799893)

------
wyclif
What are your favourite paywall blocking software and extensions?

------
a3n
I wonder if paywall bypass tools will one day be treated as burglary tools.

~~~
akersten
Why? The webserver _chose_ to provide the browser with content. If they're
comfortable serving the article to any browser that whispers the secret
passphrase "I'm visiting you from Google.com" \- well, that's their
prerogative.

~~~
a3n
If a guy can be convicted for traversing a URL ...
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weev](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weev) ...
then just about anything can be prosecuted if the "victim" and prosecutor are
determined enough and the perpetrator is unlikable enough.

His conviction was overturned on incorrect venue, not because of a problem
with the charge.

~~~
akersten
Yep, I know of Weev's case and think it was a heinous miscarriage of justice.
Companies outsourcing the consequences of their misconfigured servers as
externalities to the legal system is how we wind up with massive data breaches
that firms simply brush off and consider business as usual. But that's a whole
'nother soapbox.

------
keyle
This is just getting worse. The internet has been sold out and now it's just
pathetic.

I imagine in a not-so-far away future, it will be illegal to bypass paywalls
and fines will apply.

------
NoblePublius
If I can’t use incognito mode to read to NYT, NYT shouldn’t use incognito mode
sources.

