this post was submitted on 22 Oct 2024
846 points (99.2% liked)

Memes

45445 readers
1974 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

You will go straight to jail 😡😡😡

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] sudoer777@lemmy.ml 20 points 3 hours ago (3 children)

Doesn't NYT cut off most of the article now? I used to just be able to disable JS but that didn't work anymore last I checked.

[–] Alsephina@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 hours ago (2 children)

I use this extension and it lets me bypass pretty every paywall including NYT's

[–] hunt4peas@lemmy.ml 1 points 17 minutes ago

Best extension along with uBlock Origins!

[–] skeezix@lemmy.world 0 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Warning. Russian orc website. Beware.

[–] SilentStorms@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 43 minutes ago (1 children)

If you're afraid of visiting Russian websites, piracy is probably not for you.

[–] skeezix@lemmy.world 1 points 40 minutes ago (1 children)

Russian websites aren’t the problem. Software from Russian websites potentially is.

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.world 2 points 28 minutes ago (1 children)

What a bullshit argument. Oh yes, untrusted software from random sites in any other top-level domain is safe.

[–] skeezix@lemmy.world -1 points 25 minutes ago

Shouldnt you be on the ukraine front lines with your commrades?

[–] xenoclast@lemmy.world 9 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (2 children)

Yeah the article stub doesn't link to the article. It links to a login flow with the article id. If you go directly to the article you get redirected if you don't have a session.

It's incredibly easy to make an impossible to get around paywall. Porn has done it since the Internet existed.

In this very particular situation I'm glad most companies are lazy and stupid.

I don't particularly care if a company does pay only content. I think its legitimately ok. I hate companies that don't make you pay enough for the service to cover their costs thus leading to complete enshitifaction.

[–] ChuckEffingNorris@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 hours ago

I thought the issue was they wanted search engines to be able to see the content, but not non paying viewers? Hence slightly shitty paywalls.

[–] humorlessrepost@lemmy.world 3 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (2 children)

It's incredibly easy to make an impossible to get around paywall.

Sure, but the easily-bypassed js method makes sure it’s still crawlable by search engines, which is a trade well worth making where I work. Doesn’t matter as much for porn sites since the title and description aren’t the content most people are there for, so you can expose them on the paywall page.

[–] sudoer777@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 hours ago

Maybe they have a way to unblock major search engine crawlers but block it for everyone else now? I know Cloudflare was doing something similar for some bot protection mechanism, and this seems like something news outlets would want to do also.

[–] xenoclast@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

Very true. I don't disagree at all. I think once google finally becomes totally useless. It won't matter.

I mean Google is already just Yellow Pages AdWords edition with AI content

[–] polysics@lemmy.world 2 points 2 hours ago

Brave browser has a filter to bypass paywalls. Works on desktop and mobile versions. Definitely works on NYT as I just read something there today. And of course has built in adblock. You can also add additional filters and adblock lists.

Bonus: print to PDF in Brave to share an article with someone else. It retains all the graphics relevant to the article and cuts all the junk and ads out too.