Any Safari extensions that help beat website paywalls (e.g., NY Times, etc)?

[Idgit]

Chrome has a bunch of add-ons that help users bypass paywall restrictions on sites like the NY Times, the New Yorker, and dozens and dozens of other sites. Over at the official Safari extensions site, there are no extensions for Safari that do the same thing.

Has anyone discovered any paywall-bypassing extensions for Safari on Github or elsewhere?

 

[AZhappyjack]

Chrome has a bunch of add-ons that help users bypass paywall restrictions on sites like the NY Times, the New Yorker, and dozens and dozens of other sites. Over at the official Safari extensions site, there are no extensions for Safari that do the same thing.

Has anyone discovered any paywall-bypassing extensions for Safari on Github or elsewhere?

So, you want us to help you steal content? Shame on you.

 

[Idgit]

So, you want us to help you steal content? Shame on you.

Not really the same as stealing since you can bypass most paywalls by using Google. Search for the article title in Google and then click the link. NY Times, the New Yorker, and many other sites permit this if you visit their sites through Google. The paywall restrictions only pop up when you visit the site directly after your allowance of free monthly articles is surpassed. That's how the Google Chrome paywall bypass extensions work, by automating the article title search through Google. So, again, not really stealing since the content is free already through Google. The paywall inconvenience is an encouragement to get you to subscribe and they still offer up tons of ads to users reading their articles for free.

 

[AZhappyjack]

Not really the same as stealing since you can bypass most paywalls by using Google. Search for the article title in Google and then click the link. NY Times, the New Yorker, and many other sites permit this if you visit their sites through Google. The paywall restrictions only pop up when you visit the site directly after your allowance of free monthly articles is surpassed. That's how the Google Chrome paywall bypass extensions work, by automating the article title search through Google. So, again, not really stealing since the content is free already through Google. The paywall inconvenience is an encouragement to get you to subscribe and they still offer up tons of ads to users reading their articles for free.

Yeah, it IS stealing. These sites give you so many free visits then you have to pay. Circumventing that process IS stealing content, no matter how you spin it.

I guess living in a "me, me, me", entitlement society makes everything OK, as long as you get what you want.

 

[treekram]

I'm seriously considering subscribing to a quality news site because the free sites I have gone have degenerated to pretty much c**p.

 

[Shirasaki]

I guess Apple would just no allow such app into App Store.
Although, I don't agree with "steal" theory as well.
[doublepost=1461554763][/doublepost]

I'm seriously considering subscribing to a quality news site because the free sites I have gone have degenerated to pretty much c**p.

But if you pay $400 a year for a magazine, and you still can see tons of "maybe non-intrusive" ads on sites and mobile apps if they have one, then what is the real meaning of that price?
Sure, free sites are mostly c**p with much more ads.
OK. Maybe ads-free is not always applicable anyway.

 

[Idgit]

Yeah, it IS stealing. These sites give you so many free visits then you have to pay. Circumventing that process IS stealing content, no matter how you spin it.

I guess living in a "me, me, me", entitlement society makes everything OK, as long as you get what you want.

So, I assume you're also opposed to ad-blocking extensions since they're technically stealing from websites and advertising companies.

And you also don't use Google or DuckDuckGo since you can circumvent paywalls by using those search engines, and using them to read articles online that might be paywalled would be stealing?
[doublepost=1461569567][/doublepost]

I guess Apple would just no allow such app into App Store.

Wouldn't it be hypocritical of Apple to allow ad-blockers but not paywall-bypassers that just use Google? Both are technically "stealing" according to some.

 

[Shirasaki]

Wouldn't it be hypocritical of Apple to allow ad-blockers but not paywall-bypassers that just use Google? Both are technically "stealing" according to some.

Apple does not have strong ad business so losing ad revenue is not a deal for it.
But Apple is a content provider. Helping companies to circumvent paywall is not what Apple actually hope users to do. Maybe this opposes Apple "Code of Conduct"?

 

[AZhappyjack]

So, I assume you're also opposed to ad-blocking extensions since they're technically stealing from websites and advertising companies.

And you also don't use Google or DuckDuckGo since you can circumvent paywalls by using those search engines, and using them to read articles online that might be paywalled would be stealing?

I don't have ad blockers installed on any of my browsers. I don't see the need. If I visit a site that is overrun with ads, i will just avoid that site in the future. I don't mind a few ads on a webpage.

With regard to reading articles, if I find a link to an article that is on a paywalled site for which I don't have a subscription, I will look for the content elsewhere. Many news sources report the same articles - I equate it to watching the CBS version of a news report on the same information/story/article instead of watching the ABC network's version. As far as paywalls go, I subscribe to my local newspaper, my hometown newspaper and a couple of sports sites.

It's not that hard to legitimately view paywalled news stories from other news outlets. But there's a difference between finding the same (or related) content elsewhere for free vs circumventing a paywall.

 

[IowaLynn]

Remember when CompuServe service would charge for access and for me, tried to keep bill down ~$100/mo using Navigator?

I don't like any of the news apps that do at least seem to promise aggregating news sources. Or Notifications (too annoying, turned off all such).

Some sites esp mobile are horrid ugly with ads that get in your face and make using PITA

 

[Fishrrman]

Any site that gives you only so many "free reads" before requiring registration is using a cookie to record and report your previous visits there.

What you need is a cookie manager that allows you to designate which cookies are deleted at the end of a session, and which are retained.

I use something called "Safari Cookies" to control all my cookies (of course I'm using Safari, but other browsers may use similar extensions or add-ons.

I have my version of Safari Cookies set to ALWAYS delete ALL cookies when Safari closes -- with the exception of a relative few website forums that I frequent (such as this one).

That does the job. I'm seldom bothered by news websites telling me that I have only so many visits left before I have to register...

 

[Mcmeowmers]

Just use incognito or private mode. Works for me!
[doublepost=1461600321][/doublepost]For some sites anyways.

 

[Gregg2]

So, I assume you're also opposed to ad-blocking extensions since they're technically stealing from websites and advertising companies.

That's really terrible "logic"... apples and oranges, my friend.

And yes, bypassing a paywall is stealing, by the definition of the word. It's not a "theory".

 

[Idgit]

That's really terrible "logic"... apples and oranges, my friend.

How are they "apples and oranges"? More like two varieties of apples.

They're both income streams that depend upon someone visiting their site and reading their articles. Websites rely on visitors to earn income, either by ad views or a subscription fee (often in exchange for a ad-free reading experience). If I block the ads, the website doesn't earn income from me using their site. That's why so many websites beg you to turn off any ad-blockers when you visit their site using one. Sure, the ad company directly pays the website, but the website doesn't get that money if I block their ads.

 

[Gregg2]

How are they "apples and oranges"? More like two varieties of apples.

You aren't being asked to pay to view the ads. Not the same.

 

[Jarman74]

You aren't being asked to pay to view the ads.

If you aren't on an unlimited data plan (eg mobile), ads do require you to pay to view them. Heck, even quite handsomely: http://uk.businessinsider.com/ender...p-79-of-mobile-data-transfer-2016-3?r=US&IR=T

 

[Gregg2]

If you aren't on an unlimited data plan (eg mobile), ads do require you to pay to view them. Heck, even quite handsomely: http://uk.businessinsider.com/ender...p-79-of-mobile-data-transfer-2016-3?r=US&IR=T

More bad logic. You're paying for the data plan, not the privilege of having ads that eat up your available minutes. If you don't like the ads, don't use that plan.

 

[steve62388]

Any site that gives you only so many "free reads" before requiring registration is using a cookie to record and report your previous visits there.

What you need is a cookie manager that allows you to designate which cookies are deleted at the end of a session, and which are retained.

I use something called "Safari Cookies" to control all my cookies (of course I'm using Safari, but other browsers may use similar extensions or add-ons.

I have my version of Safari Cookies set to ALWAYS delete ALL cookies when Safari closes -- with the exception of a relative few website forums that I frequent (such as this one).

That does the job. I'm seldom bothered by news websites telling me that I have only so many visits left before I have to register...

Can you link to this extension please? I found a few with the same name.

 

[howiest]

Can you link to this extension please? I found a few with the same name.

Safari Cookies hasn't been updated in 18 months and doesn't seem to be compatible with El Capitan.
Cookie is a very good alternative, but it's 15 smackeroonies.

 

[AZhappyjack]

Safari Cookies hasn't been updated in 18 months and doesn't seem to be compatible with El Capitan.
Cookie is a very good alternative, but it's 15 smackeroonies.

How ironic.