[HN Gopher] Browser Extension to Bypass Media Sites Paywalls
___________________________________________________________________
Browser Extension to Bypass Media Sites Paywalls
Author : patrickk
Score : 141 points
Date : 2022-06-15 13:24 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (github.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (github.com)
| acd wrote:
| Who pays for journalism writing news if you bypass the paywall?
| AussieWog93 wrote:
| Advertisers.
| chihuahua wrote:
| Jeff Bezos, at least in the case of the Washington Post.
| sk8terboi wrote:
| That's pretty cool but I don't ever go to those sites. I guess
| that's a +1 for me!
| N3mor wrote:
| Using uBlock Origin - Advanced Settings, I have been blocking
| inline scripts and bypassing Paywalls.
| Cypher wrote:
| I find the main media sites hardly worth bothering with anymore
| [deleted]
| ledauphin wrote:
| somebody please solve micropayments.
| brk wrote:
| It would be a real joy if there were a way to tip for good
| content.
|
| (for those that don't get the joke:
| https://techcrunch.com/2009/08/20/tipjoy-heads-to-the-
| deadpo...)
| ryandvm wrote:
| I feel like Brave came pretty close with the Basic Attention
| Token, but not many web sites enrolled. Hell, last time I
| checked HN wasn't even set up on it (why not? what's the down
| side?).
| pedro2 wrote:
| No idea. People don't really like to tip. It must be
| automatic. Maybe BAT & Coil are onto something.
| janandonly wrote:
| Ever heard of Alby [1] to pay from the browser? Now, if you
| must have a paywall[2], that extension makes it possible to
| pay.
|
| [1] https://getalby.com
|
| [2] https://lnpay.co
| trevcanhuman wrote:
| The iOS Safari Reader view does - most of the time- the trick for
| me. Disabling javascript altogether (in Safari) works like a
| charm, at least for NYT articles.
| InvaderFizz wrote:
| I have an iOS shortcut[0] to clear the cookies and then uses
| google to get a referral link back to the page.
|
| Works for a lot of sites, doesn't work for others.
|
| Someone else created it, I just added a check for medium.com
| headers(even on non-medium domains) to then search on Twitter
| for that URL, as Twitter referrals usually bypasses medium
| paywalls.
|
| 0:
| https://www.icloud.com/shortcuts/5870106a5a8b4f15b937f40b731...
| ryandvm wrote:
| HN cracks me up. We are largely a demographic of people that make
| money from selling our IP and yet for some reason many of us are
| pretty brazen about our efforts to circumvent payment for others'
| IP.
|
| I'll admit that I incognito my way around a paywall from time to
| time, but I at least have the decency to feel kinda salty about
| it.
| nonameiguess wrote:
| I don't really buy this. I think I technically have
| subscriptions to both the Washington Post and New York Times
| that my wife purchased that I assume are valid for an entire
| household, and I used to subscribe to the LA Times when I was
| younger and read a physical newspaper.
|
| The consumption model now just isn't comparable, though. If I
| was regularly going to my city newspaper's website to figure
| out what was going on, I'd pay them. But that isn't what is
| happening. Instead, their links are getting spammed all over
| the web to link aggregation sites like Hacker News, mixed in
| with links to non-paywalled content, from a universe of
| thousand of providers, many of which provide all of the content
| for free. Subscribing to one newspaper is fine, but there is no
| conceivable world in which I'm going to purchase subscriptions
| to every paywalled site I ever encounter a link to, especially
| when I usually don't know before clicking that it is paywalled.
|
| Nonetheless, being able to meaningfully participate in the
| conversations generated by the article on link aggregator sites
| like this that provide comment sections means I need to read
| the articles, doesn't it? If the only options for consistently
| being able to do that are either 1) purchase 300+ distinct
| subscriptions to sites where I have no idea if I'm ever going
| back again, or 2) bypass the paywalls, I'm going to bypass the
| paywalls.
| tablespoon wrote:
| > Nonetheless, being able to meaningfully participate in the
| conversations generated by the article on link aggregator
| sites like this that provide comment sections means I need to
| read the articles, doesn't it? If the only options for
| consistently being able to do that are either 1) purchase
| 300+ distinct subscriptions to sites where I have no idea if
| I'm ever going back again, or 2) bypass the paywalls, I'm
| going to bypass the paywalls.
|
| You're looking at it purely from the perspective of a
| consumer, which misses pretty significant parts of the
| picture. Someone needed to get paid to produced a lot of that
| content, and in many cases they won't have the revenue to do
| that without a paywall.
|
| Your justification isn't too different from one that goes "if
| I want to meaningfully participate in American society, I
| need a car. However I don't want to pay $30,000+ for one, so
| if I can pick locks and hotwire a car to get the
| transportation I want, I'll do that instead of paying."
| tablespoon wrote:
| > HN cracks me up. We are largely a demographic of people that
| make money from selling our IP and yet for some reason many of
| us are pretty brazen about our efforts to circumvent payment
| for others' IP.
|
| Eh, that's not really correct. Most of us _actually_ make money
| from creating IP for others to own, so it 's not nearly as
| hypocritical as you imply.
|
| IMHO, the brazenness is cultural momentum from the expectations
| formed during the heady 90s "information wants to be free"
| period and the resulting _long_ period where paywalls were
| rare. Honestly, it probably would have been better for everyone
| if everything had been pay-walled from the beginning.
| OrvalWintermute wrote:
| > Most of us actually make money from creating IP for others
| to own, so it's not nearly as hypocritical as you imply.
|
| Actually, I think most of us provide services, and it is a
| big mix.
|
| > many of us are pretty brazen about our efforts to
| circumvent payment for others' IP.
|
| Let me start with a link on Elsevier https://openatcuny.commo
| ns.gc.cuny.edu/2015/05/20/elsevier-e...
|
| Much of what is said about Elsevier, the worst offender, is
| true to a lesser extent in other paywalls.
|
| I don't believe that paywalls are Moral, Ethical, or Fair. I
| also believe that paywalls can be discrimatory, and
| deceptive. This goes along with a general critique I have of
| IP. Paywalls regularly use others' content, without
| compensating them.
|
| In many cases, content thieves likes Elsevier take content
| that is funded by our tax dollars, and hide it behind
| paywalls, or expensive subscriptions. I paid for that. This
| is stealing from me.
|
| IP is really a fake term that conflates a number of things,
| some of which are just ideas or math. It also regularly
| cheats basic things like "Right of First Sale" through BS
| such as licensing/bundling/etc
|
| Paywalls regularly permit search engines to index their
| content, but when you go to see the content that was openly
| indexed, they block you, and hit you up for funding. This is
| a bait & switch. Some paywalls vacillate between business
| models intentionally to get your personal data, sell it,
| while using ads, then go full paywall after the sale has
| already been made of info.
|
| I think there is a social contract underpinning
| communications, that we were always free to redistribute
| them. But the "Communication thieves" Paywalls don't want
| that through the cottage industry that grew to exploit these
| gaps.
|
| If we think of the negative impacts of all these paywalls to
| the 3rd world and increasing digitization, talk about a
| horrible digital divide emerging?
|
| Signed,
|
| Militant Anti-Paywall Revolutionary
| tablespoon wrote:
| > Much of what is said about Elsevier, the worst offender,
| is true to a lesser extent in other paywalls.
|
| Honestly, I think it's a mistake reason about _all_
| paywalls from the example of Elsevier 's paywalls. There
| are a lot of unique aspects to the production of academic
| work that are not present in other areas.
|
| Revenue is needed to fund the creation of other kinds of
| work, such as news reporting, and for stuff like that,
| paywalls are needed because other free-access revenue
| models frankly didn't work.
| azinman2 wrote:
| If everything had been paywalled from the beginning, the
| internet would have been less successful. Most of that free
| information was possible because there was enough print
| subscription and personal ads money to subsidize it all. That
| is no longer true.
| ImminentDugong wrote:
| Yet this is called Hacker News, and hackers usually like to,
| well, hack and work around stuff just because they can.
|
| It's one of the nice things of knowing how technology works,
| and as long as it's doable only by technical people it's
| probably not a big issue for IP / content creators (I'm
| considering adding an extension from source a technical task).
|
| As long as you don't commoditize piracy too much, it's fine.
| prmoustache wrote:
| > As long as you don't commoditize piracy too much, it's
| fine.
|
| Still, I wouldn't call that piracy at all.
|
| As a non subscriber they open their door to you, offer you a
| counter and tell you you can lurk anything until the counter
| say you have to leave or pay. But that counter only really
| work if you accept to put batteries inside and turn it on and
| nobody is really bothering to check.
|
| Also they chose to use drug dealers methods knowing very well
| that network effects will make you knock at their door on a
| regular basis.
|
| Choosing to ignore that counter would be unethical/rude the
| same way taking photo in a museum that prohibit them is. But
| none of this is piracy.
| batch12 wrote:
| I guess I am a horrible human being. I don't feel bad at all
| blocking ads, bypassing client side modal popups, or viewing
| data happily provided to search engines with the intent of
| giving me a taste. To be fair, I mostly just don't read
| paywalled articles.
| [deleted]
| Mordisquitos wrote:
| It's not our problem if media sites send us the full content of
| their articles and expect our browsers to implement their
| arcane decisions whether to magnanimously allow us to see it
| this time or not.
|
| If they don't like it, it's trivial to put their content behind
| a requirement to log in with a validated account. In fact, it's
| even easier than what they do now!
|
| Oh, but wait, that won't play with the SEO, user engagement,
| social media sharing, dark patterns to entice users to pay by
| offering them a few crumbs now and then... Again, not my
| problem. They do them, I'll do me.
| VWWHFSfQ wrote:
| This is quite a lot of gymnastics you're doing here to
| justify to yourself why you don't want to pay to read
| people's news stories.
| nonrandomstring wrote:
| Sure, there are a lot of moral gymnastics going on here.
|
| Seems we don't really have a good understanding of what
| goes wrong with paywalled links.
|
| For me, as an author, I find myself in a ridiculous
| situation when I want to share with friends works I've done
| for a site that uses paywalls but doesn't pay me (yes this
| happens in the real world of publishing). So I am
| ambivalent and often share a link along with instructions
| on how to bypass access controls.
|
| But more generally I am irritated by links other people
| share, such as here on HN, that are paywalled. I'd rather
| not know about them than experience the frustration and
| time-waste of following them.
|
| So there is a contradiction/tension at the heart of digital
| publishing, that creators, critics, researchers and
| commenters really want exposure/reach more than they want
| (or get) money.
|
| That said, paywalls are not the only problem and are more
| understandable than sites that block Tor, use Cloudflare,
| Geo-block, or those brain-dead ISPs or university sysadmins
| who block sites based on broad keywords so that almost any
| kind of research is impossible without tunnelling out past
| their crappy firewalls.
| Mordisquitos wrote:
| And yet I do pay subscriptions for the news and
| publications whose content I find good enough to be
| interested in what they will publish next, or if I support
| what they stand for. However, I feel no reason to pay
| subscriptions for one-off articles that may interest me
| from the myriad of media companies that I don't care to
| follow for one reason or another if they send me the
| content anyway. Their business model is not my problem.
| VWWHFSfQ wrote:
| You can just say you don't want to pay for it and would
| rather steal. No need to try to find some moral
| justification for it.
| laserlight wrote:
| Do you have a legal reference that states bypassing
| paywalls is stealing?
| [deleted]
| sciguy77 wrote:
| FYI, I was still blocked by WaPo's paywall after the first
| article, even though this extension is showing itself as on in
| Chrome (tried restart to no avail).
| moneywoes wrote:
| Any idea for mobile?
| NoGravitas wrote:
| I have this one (https://gitlab.com/magnolia1234/bypass-
| paywalls-chrome-clean) installed in Firefox for Android. You do
| have to jump through a few hoops because it's not on the
| recommended list.
| vasili111 wrote:
| Could you please give information about "few hooks"? I need
| to install add9n that is not on recommended list.
| hoppyhoppy2 wrote:
| These instructions work on either Firefox Nightly for
| Android (through Google Play Store) or Fennec F-Droid
| (through the F-Droid store). They won't work on regular
| Firefox for Android.
| https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2020/09/29/expanded-
| extensio...
| gnicholas wrote:
| Insight Browser (a YC company!) has an iOS browser that
| supports extensions. I imagine it wouldn't be too difficult for
| someone to take this extension and port it to their platform.
| jaimehrubiks wrote:
| For Android, use Kiwi browser (basically chrome) and install
| it. It works great
| mint2 wrote:
| Chrome > dev tools > network > article payload. Interestingly NYT
| has a hiring add in the console
| m348e912 wrote:
| Where is article payload? I tried this with NYT and couldn't
| find what you're pointing at under the network tab.
| mint2 wrote:
| Did you clear, then refresh page?
| m348e912 wrote:
| Yup
| janandonly wrote:
| Brilliant.
|
| I will be testing this, starting now....
| latchkey wrote:
| Please note that this version got replaced by another version
| [1]. Apparently there was some drama [2] around Google Analytics
| tracking in the first one.
|
| [1] https://gitlab.com/magnolia1234/bypass-paywalls-chrome-clean
|
| [2] https://gitlab.com/magnolia1234/bypass-paywalls-chrome-
| clean...
| makeworld wrote:
| Thanks for posting these links so I didn't have to :)
|
| I use this extension all the time and it works great.
| justanorherhack wrote:
| Huh I was annoyed when I went to open a ticket rexently and the
| original repo was locked..
| markovbot wrote:
| Wow, sneaking Google Analytics into an extension like this?
| Some people really have no morals
| strongpigeon wrote:
| That's rather uncharitable. They most likely just want to get
| some usage data. It's ignoring the privacy concerns that come
| with GA, which isn't great, but saying they have no morals is
| more than a stretch.
| fwn wrote:
| They never embedded GA in the Firefox extension, just on
| Chrome and explained it by their assumption that chrome
| users probably aren't as opposed to Google tracking as
| those using Firefox.
|
| Probably the only reason I remember it is because it felt
| like such a peculiar justification.
|
| The other extension got some pretty shady backers on HN in
| the past as well. [1] I think that this kind of extension
| just attracts drama more than others.
|
| [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22482804
| [deleted]
| moffkalast wrote:
| Then they should read comments on the extension page lol,
| not spy on people.
| sofixa wrote:
| Google Analytics is not spyware, it just counts users,
| OSes, browsers, page views. It doesn't identify users
| personally ( you could if you knew the only person with a
| Chromebook in a city, but that's about as granular as it
| could get).
|
| As can be seen by any statistic - be it the
| download/rate/comment ratios on any of the mobile app
| stores, or the Chrome extension stores, the vast majority
| of users will stay silent. Wanting to know a _tiny_ bit
| about them is understandable.
| tomComb wrote:
| Here we are discussing how to steal content and you make that
| comment about a developer who is giving you something for
| free? Wow, some people really have no perspective.
| barneygale wrote:
| So sad for the journalists involved, who have to rewrite
| their article every time someone steals it.
| markovbot wrote:
| You're right, I should be thankful for free spyware. my bad
| jcranberry wrote:
| Ad-driven churnalist/click-bait journalism, here we come.
| ig-88ms wrote:
| We've been there for years.
| DawsonBruce wrote:
| Reader View on my phone usually does the trick, however, sites
| seem to be catching onto that.
| janandonly wrote:
| This is why we can not have nice things online....
|
| Why not implement a paywall that lets you pay for an article? The
| tech already exists, see [1] and [2]. And if you feel bad about
| leaving your credit card details somewhere, you could use a
| plugin like Alby [3].
|
| [1] https://lnpay.co
|
| [2] https://coil.com
|
| [3] https://getalby.com
| dclusin wrote:
| Due to interchange fees on the major processing networks it is
| not practical to charge less then $1. Fees per charge are
| something like 30 cents plus percentage of transaction.
| [deleted]
| godmode2019 wrote:
| Because a very small amount of the articles are worth paying
| for, so they bundle the product together to with all the low
| quality articles that no one will pay for.
| Cypher wrote:
| culi wrote:
| And how will I know if an article was worth paying for until
| I've already read it? This might work with a site I frequent
| and have grown to trust but most of the views on most
| articles aren't regulars of the publication itself but
| probably got there because it was shared or came up as a
| search result
| strongpigeon wrote:
| It is a tricky situation. On the one hand, subscription models
| are great as they don't incentivize flashy click-bait as much
| and reward steady, high-quality content. On the other hand, you
| don't know whether a publication is worth subscribing to until
| you've sampled some of their content.
|
| The "free-articles-then-paywall" model seems to be working for
| a lot of publications to tackle this and get people to pay, but
| when your limit is 1 article a month, you can't be too shocked
| if people go around it. I like the idea of TechCrunch free +
| paid content, but I wonder how it's working for them.
| AussieWog93 wrote:
| A couple of comments here talking about how this is piracy, none
| discussing the fact that paywalls are a completely broken
| business model in an era where sharing information with your
| friends/online communities is so important.
|
| Back in the day, with physical paper, if you wanted to discuss an
| article with someone you'd simply hand them the paper and point.
| Now, people simply don't share paywalled articles, or if they do
| someone will comment an archived link immediately.
|
| As Gabe Newell once said, "piracy is almost always a service
| problem". If the media companies started delivering the product
| in a way that people actually want the problem of piracy would
| disappear overnight.
|
| Just shooting the shit, but $x a month to read the paper, with a
| button to generate un-paywalled links to share with friends and
| family, and $y a month for a "thought leader" version that lets
| you generate un-paywalled links with unlimited circulation would
| let people consume and share news the way they actually want to
| while still being monetisable.
|
| Trying to charge everyone who looks at your article in an era
| where success is defined by virality is just dumb.
| martingxx wrote:
| Although I am fortunate enough to be able to afford to subscribe
| to almost anything I might want to read, I don't like the idea of
| paywalls in general.
|
| I believe they exclude the less fortunate from access to
| important resources, so I refuse to give my money to companies
| that use paywalls, because I see that as rewarding bad behaviour.
|
| Instead, I always pay for sites I find valuable that don't have
| paywalls (e.g., guardian.co.uk)
|
| I realise this isn't the same view that everyone has, which is
| fine. Vote with your money.
| xdfgh1112 wrote:
| Paywalls seem to work but at the cost of restricting access to
| a large group of people. It is evident from sites like
| Eurogamer, Wikipedia and The Guardian that a more patreon-like
| "supporter" model can work just as well without annoying
| people.
| ziffusion wrote:
| OrvalWintermute wrote:
| > I believe they exclude the less fortunate from access to
| important resources, so I refuse to give my money to companies
| that use paywalls, because I see that as rewarding bad
| behaviour.
|
| I agree with what you wrote but I think it is an
| understatement.
|
| The good fortune of spending an amount of years in a great
| coastal community with an excellent library system; those
| primarily physical assets I used as a child are now mainly
| digitized.
|
| Where does that leave much of the world that cannot afford
| these exploitative paywalls?
|
| This is truly a diversity & inclusion issue about providing the
| same 100 steps forward many of us were fortunate to receive, to
| everyone. Our tax dollars already funded much of it anyways.
|
| We cannot permit the unjust enrichment of paywall tyranny!
| rat9988 wrote:
| Before paywalls newspapers tried free access for all and it
| didn't work. People always find a reason to justify why they
| don't want to pay.
| martingxx wrote:
| For some newspapers it _is_ working, so clearly it can work.
|
| If some newspapers haven't figured out how to make open
| access work, but that's a problem with those newspapers, not
| with open access.
| polyterative wrote:
| If prices had been better, I would've been a subscriber for a
| long time
| a3w wrote:
| For me, the internet works like this: you find a link on social
| media. A cookie banner or paywall prevents me from reading the
| article. So I read the comments section. Nice shooting yourself
| in the foot, original content creator.
| brk wrote:
| Agreed. Same goes for online streaming content. I'll pay up to
| $50/mo in total for media subscriptions (eg: Netflix). I won't
| pay $19.99 for 8 individual services that each have 1 or 2
| things worth watching and then a bunch of filler (Netflix is
| continually heading this direction, IMO).
|
| I have no issues at all paying for content, but I really only
| want to pay for the things that interest me directly, not a
| bundle of shows that have no personal appeal. And there is a
| disincentive to have too many services in general.
| sofixa wrote:
| > Netflix is continually heading this direction
|
| It's not really their choice. Most of the content owners have
| their own competing service now, so Netflix need content.
| Small amounts of good quality content won't keep people
| subscribed for long, so they need quantity _and_ quality.
| VWWHFSfQ wrote:
| I like having a lot of choices. I don't want to be stuck with
| one conglomerate service that just absorbs everything else
| Disney style.
| dawnerd wrote:
| If they all didn't end up being low effort press-release
| regurgitations I might subscribe to more as well.
| slowmotiony wrote:
| I was a subscriber to NYT until I wanted to cancel and there
| was no option to do that, you had to call some number in the US
| and explain yourself to some guy about why you want to cancel
| your subscription. Learned my lesson there, never again.
| xdfgh1112 wrote:
| Same. Left a really bad impression. Their shitty pricing
| model too, charging people $100s/year until they try to
| cancel then reducing it down to like $30/year.
| bigmattystyles wrote:
| Whenever they have an online help chat with a human and they
| tell me to call, I tell them I deaf. It's not true but they
| have always just done the cancellation for me. YMMV
| shp0ngle wrote:
| Me too. This is why I just subscribe to Substack now. Yes
| they try to subtly pressure you in ux to "just pause", but
| that's nothing compared to NYT "please call this US line".
| jimbob456 wrote:
| Another one:
|
| https://txtify.it/
|
| Remember, these paywalled sites are inviting in the Google
| Webcrawler to add to the index EVERYBODY searches; they are
| purposely poisoning Google's results with paid for content.
|
| Any bypasser that either present fake credentials [ie as the
| google bot] or returns the contents of the Google cache is fair
| game.
| newfonewhodis wrote:
| I'll probably get downvoted into oblivion but I gotta put this
| out here:
|
| I understand adblocking because of how absolutely garbage ad
| networks are for privacy (and to some extent device performance).
| But I can't help and compare mass bypassing paywalls of news
| sites to jumping the pike on a transit network.
|
| Some people should probably do it (who really can't afford
| subscriptions) but generally HN audience is well paid and can
| afford to support their sources of news.
|
| I know people here will come up with ~~reasons~~ excuses for
| justifying this theft, but it just reinforces the entitled nature
| of well-paid tech workers in my mind.
|
| Go pay for your news.
| xenocratus wrote:
| That's not a legitimate comparison of the situation, because if
| you can bypass the paywall to be able to read it usually means
| the data is already on your device for you to read in the first
| place, it's just "hidden" in some shitty way.
|
| I would compare it with a physical newspaper company sending
| you the newspaper covered in some tamper-resistant material
| that lets you read the first rows only. I see no reason why you
| shouldn't try to tamper with that cover given that you
| effectively own it now.
|
| Go full "log in to read this" (by which I mean only sending the
| data you intend EVERYONE to read even when the user is not
| logged in) and then it's a fair comparison.
|
| EDIT: > I know people here will come up with ~~reasons~~
| excuses for justifying this theft, but it just reinforces the
| entitled nature of well-paid tech workers in my mind.
|
| I think the industry that has given rise to shitty paywallish
| implementations should justify themselves as well, then.
|
| NB: I pay/have paid for news sources, including ones that I
| appreciated but had literally no time to read. However, this
| sort of approach to "protecting IP" is particularly stupid, so
| I feel no remorse bypassing it (I do it manually, though, it's
| more satisfying).
| wetpaws wrote:
| I'm fine with idea paying for news, but I'm not fine when 99%
| of links I click are paywalled.
| rickreynoldssf wrote:
| Why isn't this in the Chrome store? There's other extensions that
| integrate with 12ft.io in the Chrome store (e.g.
| https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/12ft-free/ljgfopbn...)
| so there's no rules against this kind of thing.
|
| So I wonder what this extension in particular is doing that
| Google wouldn't approve of.
|
| ...also 12ft.io already does this for almost every paywalled
| site.
| greymalik wrote:
| 12ft.io has a very low success rate for anything I've tried.
| moffkalast wrote:
| Yeah it's a bit of a one trick pony as the dev explains on
| the home page, and that trick has long been patched by most
| sites.
| nijave wrote:
| Afaik there's issues on GitHub talking about both Chrome and
| Mozilla addon stores. I think the add-ons used to be split by
| browser so might be in an older repo issues
|
| Edit: https://github.com/iamadamdev/bypass-paywalls-
| chrome/issues/...
| gnicholas wrote:
| I believe 12ft.io's extension has an opt-out, so many popular
| sites are blocked from its functionality.
| mvexel wrote:
| Worth noting that at least in the United States, your public
| library likely provides free access to some paywalled /
| subscription sites. Mine has NYT, WSJ, Consumer Reports and a
| bunch of others.
| gnicholas wrote:
| This used to be a good option for me (in Silicon Valley), but
| when I last checked this option was much less attractive.
| Previously you could sign up for a 1-year pass; now it's
| something like a week.
| googlryas wrote:
| How is that provided? Do they get their IP address whitelisted
| or something? I imagine it isn't just a library account logged
| into those sites.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-06-15 23:01 UTC)