(no title)
dreamdu5t | 7 years ago
the web is public, despite SV’s best attempts to subvert and exploit that. If you don’t want someone accessing information don’t publish it as a website that anyone can access.
dreamdu5t | 7 years ago
the web is public, despite SV’s best attempts to subvert and exploit that. If you don’t want someone accessing information don’t publish it as a website that anyone can access.
__d|7 years ago
If it's legitimate for a bank to hide your data behind a username and password, how is a journalism-provider any different?
cipherzero|7 years ago
realusername|7 years ago
_em6m|7 years ago
Just because something is on the internet doesn't give you the holly right of getting it for free.
m52go|7 years ago
Correct. Others have the holy right to charge, and I have the holy right to try getting around it.
austincheney|7 years ago
Why not?
cipherzero|7 years ago
Have you ever been in a conversation where someone talks about something and you said “hey I read this cool article on that, let me send it to you.” If so, guess what - you were the search engine for that conversation. Should you then have access to view the non-paywalled content?
So yeah, I have no issue with this add on. If they didn’t want the double standard - to allow free access for some and not others - it is easily possible and in their full control to prevent add ons like these (think of any admin site or service for which you have to login before seeing/do anything.)
Content producers have a choice and they’re choosing to be bullies. I have no moral or ethical qualms when it comes to dealing with bullies or double standards.
Just my two cents.