Chrome Extension Gets You Past WSJ Paywall With One Click(chrome.google.com)
chrome.google.com
Chrome Extension Gets You Past WSJ Paywall With One Click
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/pclnaginpkbignpbnkjojicpbilmieff#
4 comments
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....
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.
"This extension can access: Your data on all websites. Your browsing history"
Standard, but still.
Standard, but still.
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.
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.
It apparently needs to modify links on pages that link to WSJ.
You can expect the source easily enough by installing it and navigating to something like ~/.google/chrome/Extensions
You can expect the source easily enough by installing it and navigating to something like ~/.google/chrome/Extensions
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.
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.
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.