Hacker News Reader

Comment by fabulist | Hacker News Reader

Non-paywall link: https://archive.today/kLrVp

For reference, I find archive.today to be the most reliable way to bypass WSJ's paywall. I've never had occasion to bypass any other paywalls.

View on HN

If you're using Firefox you can install an addon named "RefControl" and configure it to send a fake google.com referrer when visiting wsj.com or any of the other popular paywalled sites. This gets around the paywall pretty effectively.

I use a similar add on, but I've never gotten it to work. I didn't try too hard though, since archive.today is effective and has the nice side benefit of being linkable.

alas:

The site you are trying to access is not permitted based on the category of this site as per the ~Acceptable Use Policy~

Site: archive.today, Category: Technology/Internet;Proxy Avoidance

Out of curiosity, what's the proxy/filter that's blocking you?

Work, they also block my online friends blog about living on a canadian sailboat*. Of course I can get on facebook and youtube and hell even reddit/somethingawful so for the life of me I cannot work out why tuglife.ca would be so terrifying.

Alas.

or just search for "Etsy Vendors to Get a Piece of IPO" in Google and you're good to go.

Hehe, I wonder why I'm sure you are using adblock too.

They are litering the Internet with stupid ads and malware!!!! Adblock is my right!!!!! Give us an option to pay for content, stupid publishers!

This is why, the Internet will always rely largely on ads.

The adblockers are mostly comprised of people who simply don't want to look at ads and aren't seeking to pay out of pocket, either. There is a vocal minority that speaks about privacy and (possibly a separate group) claims that they'd rather pay for content but the majority just plain doesn't want to be bothered with looking at ads. Maybe the next generation is ad blind. I doubt they're concerned with malware given what they'd download from The Pirate Bay. My guess: they just feel entitled or don't feel like their contribution (click/view-wise) impacts the publisher's bottom line. On the whole, not any more annoying than people who disable JavaScript.

You've got me on that one.

I have high hopes that the Internet will find a way to finance itself that isn't based on ads/surveillance. I'm thinking of launching a platform to monetize sites.

I would like to think that someone will find the happy medium between target advertising and privacy, but I don't hold out much hope. When ad companies get sold and acquired (like Flurry for $300m to Yahoo!) the buyer is not buying their ability to serve an ad.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com