Can this be done in a browser extension? I’m basically wondering why people don’t tell other people about Paywall bypass software on Lemmy. Is it because it sucks? Doesn’t exist?
Such software seems like it would be very Lemmy, and very Linux, and very piracy, and very anarchic. So why am I not already aware of any?
it absolutely can! there’s Bypass Paywalls Clean developed by magnolia1234. the reason you don’t see them shared often is that they’re repeatedly taken down from official extension stores like the Chrome Web Store and Firefox Add-ons, and platforms like GitHub, due to legal and political pressure from publishers, which pushes them to increasingly obscure and/or questionable hosting platforms that most normal users wouldn’t touch - case in point, Bypass Paywalls Clean itself is currently hosted on GitFlic, a Russian code hosting platform, as it’s been pushed outside the reach of Western legal frameworks
no, archive.today (and similar services like the Wayback Machine) work by fetching the page directly through their own servers, essentially acting as a headless browser that renders the page and saves a snapshot. the archive service itself makes the HTTP request, executes JavaScript, and captures the resulting document object model - no subscriber involvement required
soft paywalls are enforced by JavaScript running in your browser - the server sends the full article content regardless, and then the JavaScript checks if you’re a subscriber and hides or blocks it if not. when archive.today or a self-hosted tool like ArchiveBox fetches the page, it gets the full content directly from the server before any of that JavaScript enforcement runs. the server doesn’t know or care whether you’re a subscriber, it just responds to the request
I always assumed that wasn’t the case because Paywall bypass extensions are not linked in a reply when someone screams about paywalls in a thread on Reddit or Lemmy. Why is that possible, but not possible with a browser extension?
Soft paywalls only exist on badly made sites (which make up a large part of all sites so it’s still more effective than it has any right to be).
Many news sites with paywalls have a proper hard paywall. The only way to get around those is with an account or with an exploit. Neither of those two are going to be published for use in an extension though (as it’d get deactivated very fast).
Is there a reason self hosted paywall bypass tools don’t exist? Is it because these services pay for access?
they do exist: http://archivebox.io/
At first glance, this does not bypass paywalls. It archives web pages.
People conflate the two services because some of them bypass paywalls as they archive.
I specifically asked for about paywall bypass on purpose.
the archiving mechanism itself is what bypasses paywalls. it archives by fetching pages server-side before client-side JavaScript enforces paywalls
Can this be done in a browser extension? I’m basically wondering why people don’t tell other people about Paywall bypass software on Lemmy. Is it because it sucks? Doesn’t exist?
Such software seems like it would be very Lemmy, and very Linux, and very piracy, and very anarchic. So why am I not already aware of any?
it absolutely can! there’s Bypass Paywalls Clean developed by magnolia1234. the reason you don’t see them shared often is that they’re repeatedly taken down from official extension stores like the Chrome Web Store and Firefox Add-ons, and platforms like GitHub, due to legal and political pressure from publishers, which pushes them to increasingly obscure and/or questionable hosting platforms that most normal users wouldn’t touch - case in point, Bypass Paywalls Clean itself is currently hosted on GitFlic, a Russian code hosting platform, as it’s been pushed outside the reach of Western legal frameworks
You’d think they would host on codeberg.
I think a subscribed user of the news site has to upload the “unlocked” article to the archive website.
no, archive.today (and similar services like the Wayback Machine) work by fetching the page directly through their own servers, essentially acting as a headless browser that renders the page and saves a snapshot. the archive service itself makes the HTTP request, executes JavaScript, and captures the resulting document object model - no subscriber involvement required
Ah I see, thanks for the correction!
So there is no subscriber at all? How do they get past the wall that requires the payment?
soft paywalls are enforced by JavaScript running in your browser - the server sends the full article content regardless, and then the JavaScript checks if you’re a subscriber and hides or blocks it if not. when archive.today or a self-hosted tool like ArchiveBox fetches the page, it gets the full content directly from the server before any of that JavaScript enforcement runs. the server doesn’t know or care whether you’re a subscriber, it just responds to the request
Thanks!
I always assumed that wasn’t the case because Paywall bypass extensions are not linked in a reply when someone screams about paywalls in a thread on Reddit or Lemmy. Why is that possible, but not possible with a browser extension?
Are soft paywalls uncommon?
Soft paywalls only exist on badly made sites (which make up a large part of all sites so it’s still more effective than it has any right to be).
Many news sites with paywalls have a proper hard paywall. The only way to get around those is with an account or with an exploit. Neither of those two are going to be published for use in an extension though (as it’d get deactivated very fast).