
Show HN: Built an extension to put an end to paywalls and popups - adawg4
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/pophurdle/aahomkibgllnelmhgifialfohphlfjip
======
deepspace
> This alpha version is free until we release beta!

This implies that you will, at some point, be charging a fee to remove revenue
from other sites. Does this not border on unethical business practice?

~~~
adawg4
To clarify the paid option will let publishers verify ownership of their sites
and then get what they may have lost by ppl using the extension with adblock.

~~~
jaywalk
Seriously? Do you even understand how ridiculous that sounds?

~~~
smacktoward
"We destroyed your business model. For a small fee, we will be happy to un-
destroy it."

------
ddevault
Nice work! I would appreciate this more if it were available in the form of a
uBlock list, rather than a standalone (and apparently pre-monetization)
browser extension.

And to everyone who's complaining about 'stealing revenue': buzz off. It's a
_user_ agent, not a _vendor_ agent. Screw these popups and nagware and screw
your website which uses them.

~~~
eganist
Yeah, I take a pretty simple policy to ads.

If you run your own ad platform from first-party code and you audit the
process for ad inclusion as well as the code running the network to ensure
only static ads from vetted partners, we're good and I won't block. Otherwise,
block.

Blame Forbes. [https://www.networkworld.com/article/3021113/forbes-
malware-...](https://www.networkworld.com/article/3021113/forbes-malware-ad-
blocker-advertisements.html)

------
cpeterso
Instead of paying Pop Hurdle $4.99/month to remove other sites attempts to pay
their bills, you could pay Scroll $4.99/month ($2.49 for the first six months)
to remove all ads from Scroll's partner sites who then receive a cut of that
$2.49 (minus Scroll's cut). This cut is reportedly more per-user than
publishers typically get from ads per-user.

[https://scroll.com/](https://scroll.com/)

Disclosure: Mozilla is partnering with Scroll to create a Scroll Firefox
extension ("Firefox Better Web"):
[https://firstlook.firefox.com/betterweb/](https://firstlook.firefox.com/betterweb/)

------
minimaxir
> This does NOT close out of "hard" blockers that require payment to view
> content because that is illegal.

This implies that "soft" blockers like this aren't illegal, which is a topic
of debate and to my knowledge hasn't been legally tested.

I dislike paywalls as much as anyone else, but I wouldn't assume that paywall
bypasses are kosher. It's not analogous with ad blocking.

~~~
JSavageOne
> which is a topic of debate

No it's not. Nobody is debating this. Even if people were, it's literally
impossible to enforce so it doesn't matter (unless your moral conscience is
influenced by the law)

~~~
minimaxir
Sure, it's neither feasible nor practical to sue _individual users_ for using
paywall bypassing tools, but a service with a distinct company presence that
could potentially monetize said paywall bypassing would be a probable target
for a C&D.

------
rozab
This extension offers a subset of the functionality of open source extensions
like stylus and ublock, and the store page is terrible. How exactly did this
get on the front page of HN?

------
sopromo
> We only use statistical data which is provided via Google Analytics. We may
> collect non-personal identification information about Users whenever they
> interact with our service.

Could you explain a bit more about that without having to send you an email?

Data collected (ip, browser..) and for how long for example.

~~~
adawg4
"Users" is how many people have it installed and how many sites it has blocked
so far, not the people specifically using the extension. Im not touching
anyone's ip data nor do I want to. Probably going to dump it monthly if
possible because its only for tracking basic KPIs. Ill switch if there's a
privacy-based alternative.

~~~
lucb1e
If "collect data about users" is supposed to mean "how many users", then maybe
amend it to say "collect data (only) about the number of users"?

~~~
adawg4
Will do!

------
nogabebop23
>> As we test the alpha version of pophurdle, we are offering it free of
charge! May not even be paid in the end also and continue to be free.

The wording here is weirdly casual and wishy-washy. I'd never pay for this
add-on, but if someone is considering helping you alpha test it they might
want a little firmer future commitment.

Combined with your answers in this thread I think you should slow down and
consider some of the questions and concerns comments have brought up. Your
responses are inconsistent and somewhat concerning.

------
wilt
Charging for a plugin like this is kinda stupid. If people don't want to pay
for the content why do they want to pay for your plugin? Then you end up in an
arms race with content providers who will block your methods leaving you with
pissed off paying users.

------
A4ET8a8uTh0
It seems like yet another step in escalating adwars. I am very much in the
anti adtech corner, but I can't help but wonder where it is going to lead us.

------
holoduke
Why do websites have pay walls? Maybe because they want to earn money. You are
now gonna take it from them. A dirty shady business I call it.

~~~
ummonk
What's dirty is clogging up search results with paywalled articles. If they
don't show it to users unless the users have payed, they shouldn't show it to
search engine crawlers either.

------
adatavizguy
What are the best resources to learn how to structure a Chrome Extension? I
find the API very difficult to grok.

~~~
oefrha
> how to structure a Chrome Extension

In the true spirit of JavaScript, you just structure it however you damn well
please. Well, not completely, usually you have a background page, a popup page
with associated scripts, an options page, optional content scripts, etc. You
can learn from examples but in general they’re just structured in whatever way
the author feels like.

> I find the API very difficult to grok.

That’s surprising because most APIs are really simple as long as you’re
comfortable with callbacks. Sometimes there’s a bit of trial and error
(messaging might be one pain point when you write your first extension), and
sometimes details might slightly differ from the docs as certain features are
tightened up (usually in the name of security), but I’ve never encountered
anything that defies a bit of debugging.

------
nubela
Isn't there an uBlock Origin thing for this? uBlock Origin Extra.

~~~
adawg4
The goal of this is to supercharge any adblocker and not specifically uBlock.
At the moment pophurdle has a few main site types it can work with and will
eventually work for most! Its currently in alpha.

~~~
basch
Ideally I want as few extensions modifying a page as possible, for speed
purposes. Having a different engine parsing, matching strings, and editing
each site must be slower than having one that does everything well.

------
JSavageOne
Just to present an alternative for anyone looking for this kind of thing, I've
been using this free Chrome extension for the last couple months and it works
like a charm [https://github.com/iamadamdev/bypass-paywalls-
chrome](https://github.com/iamadamdev/bypass-paywalls-chrome)

