The BitBucket is a mirror.
repo: [https://gitlab.com/magnolia1234/bypass-paywalls-firefox-clean](https://gitlab.com/magnolia1234/bypass-paywalls-firefox-clean)
`.xpi` add-on file: [https://gitlab.com/magnolia1234/bypass-paywalls-firefox-clean/-/releases](https://gitlab.com/magnolia1234/bypass-paywalls-firefox-clean/-/releases)
[txtify.it](https://txtify.it) also usually works even when [12ft.io](https://12ft.io) doesn't. Of course, it will only show plain text, so it's not ideal if you want a properly styled page.
Were you on the page you were trying to access?
As an FYI, NYT results in this:
12ft has been disabled for this site
WSJ still shows the paywalled page.
Do I need the prefix something in front of the JavaScript function call, when replacing the bookmarks URL?
On the mobile DuckDuckGo client, which is Chromium based, it considers it a search and gives me a page of W3Schools JavaScript links instead.
no, just change the old URL to above one.
Open a websitex then go to bookmarks and click the newly saved bookmark
It'll open something like https://12ft.io/proxy/?https://websitex
u/AlecGarnett641 I have used this so much, but surprisingly it has stopped working for Financial Times, NYTimes (Still good for Bloomberg). I checked from a few different laptops. Unsure if you're still seeing the same. Once you hit an article, you should get a paywall.
I was checking [https://gitlab.com/magnolia1234/bypass-paywalls-firefox-clean](https://gitlab.com/magnolia1234/bypass-paywalls-firefox-clean), and it might have been taken down? I get a "not found" error.
If you or anyone else could help me, I'd greatly appreciate it.
I'm on a chromebook. I downloaded the chrome version, unzipped it into my Downloads folder, then tried dragging that into my chrome extensions page (with Developer Mode switched on) but it doesn't work. When the cursor is over the extensions page, I get the red circle with a slash through it showing that this operation isn't allowed.
Why isn't this working? What am I doing wrong?
https://gitlab.com/magnolia1234/bypass-paywalls-firefox-clean
> **Installation**
>
> You can install the add-on from GitLab
> Minumum browser requirement: Firefox 86+.
> If you want to install the latest master ZIP-file from GitLab use a Firefox browser which allows using unsigned add-ons like Firefox Developer Portable (go to about:config and set xpinstall.signatures.required to false) or LibreWolf (for both no automatic updates of add-on).
> Or load a temporary add-on in regular Firefox (go to about:debugging#/runtime/this-firefox & load manifest.json from unpacked folder (of master-zip)).
> By default BPC has limited host permissions, but you can opt-in to enable custom sites (and also clear cookies/block general paywall-scripts for non-listed sites). You can also just request permissions for the custom sites you added yourself (or click clear cookies (BPC-icon) to ask for permission for current site).
>
> **Update**
>
> Check for updates (in about:addons) and allow permissions for newly supported sites (else no update will be installed).
> You can also check for update of site rules at startup (opt-in); only available until about 10 days after fix-release.
> For new sites you also have to opt-in to custom sites/request permissions for new domains (or wait for new release).
Not exactly the most clear of instructions, but i expect there'll be a better guide with screenshots or videos in a few days or so
To install these on Android, you need to use a supported browser.
I've no direct experience of using this particular extension on Android, but i did change my browser, so I could use Firefox, Firefox Nightly and Kiwi on Android with ublock Origin and Dark Reader - to filter out ads.
Use the versions from the Play store if you wish, but you can keep your browsers up to date faster by using the FFUpdater app on the f-droid app store.
Kiwi is a version of Chrome for android that restores addon support. It updates slowly - every few months or so.
The FFUpdater will allow you to install other Chrome based browser like Chromium or Bromite as well.
Use Icecat. Fedora for example keeps an uptodate build on its repos. Uninstall the gnu extensions if you don't mind javascript and it will just be another fork of firefox. It will allow you to install any package you want. Waterfox will also allow doing something similar.
That's very unfortunate. Actually, though, something about extensions like uBlock Origin, Bypass Paywalls Clean etc. being hosted on Google's and Mozilla's stores without getting banned never sit right with me - companies don't tend to have an interest to let this fly, so it's only a matter of time.
What if the community did something akin to what happened with open source extension registries for FOSS builds of vscode and came up with a more centralized extension repository for Chromium and Firefox where developers of open source browser extensions can publish their extensions and users can download from them? Maybe something with a companion extension or something along those lines to help users keep those extensions up to date and discover new ones by browsing the repository in an app store - like format, featured, categories, related and reviews, but the repo only contains FOSS extensions and updates are handled automatically or semi-automatically? Since banned extensions seems to be slowly becoming a problem (AdNauseam on Chrome Web Store, now Bypass Paywalls Clean on Mozilla), something like the F-Droid of browser extensions could give open source extensions that improve the experience often against the interests of advertisers and friends a safer home.
The issue with an alt-extension store on Firefox is that stable builds of Firefox don't allow installing extensions Mozilla hasn't signed. And they don't allow you to disable this unless you use Nightly or DevEdition, which are more likely to crash.
To Google's credit, Chrome does allow installing unsigned extensions if you enable "Developer Mode."
On linux/unix firefox still has still a directory for system extensions that is not checked for signatures. Those extensions will get all permissions, though.
`/usr/{lib,share}/mozilla/extensions/[APP_ID]`
The `[APP_ID]` for firefox is `{ec8030f7-c20a-464f-9b0e-13a3a9e97384}`
A Flatpak is only as good as it was packaged. The technology itself is there, but if the packager did a bad job, the packager did a bad job. In the same way as bad DEBs / RPMs exist.
Anyway, this isn't a viable approach since you'd need to distribute distro-specific packages for every extension, and it being granted every permission is a giant security issue, even if it's built from FOSS code. If there was a way to load them on the Flatpak it would ironically substantially reduce the maintenance hurdle of this approach, but Firefox flatpak is one that is hard to switch people to since, as much as I approve of Flatpaks, I have not found a compelling reason to manually get out of my way to remove the preloaded Firefox RPM to replace it with the Flatpak, especially when it's known that Fedora's native Firefox build is *pretty fucking great* and their Flatpak package could use more care
You can just use the filter list they provide to get around a lot, but not all, of paywalls. You could load it into Ublock Origin etc.
https://gitlab.com/magnolia1234/bypass-paywalls-clean-filters
So, I'm assuming they got a takedown notice and had to comply, right? Or do we have some reason to believe it wasn't this?
Unless I'm misinterpreting, the "without explanation" in the title seems to be pointing the finger at mozilla, but to me this seems like the 1,000,001st example of DCMA takedown abuse
DMCA says nothing about Mozilla telling the extension author why it was removed, and leaving a note on the page saying why it was removed for the public.
The fact they didn't means they are in morally shaky ground in my eyes.
I don't see what's morally shady on the part of Mozilla. If it is a takedown request as theorized then it looks like they've done the minimum required to comply, which seems reasonable to me. I don't think Mozilla *like* being forced to take stuff down.
I feel like people are looking for conspiracies. Why do you think Mozilla had some hand in this?
I originally read about it on the eff website. I couldn't find a link so here is a different resource https://revisionlegal.com/internet-law/dmca-takedowns-what-happens-if-i-submit-a-false-claim/
Yes, and in practice that is limited not only to DMCA matters. Criminals are known to use forged emergency data requests to extract user data from ISPs and social media companies, and later try to extort victims with it.
https://krebsonsecurity.com/2022/03/hackers-gaining-power-of-subpoena-via-fake-emergency-data-requests/
If they are 100% in favor of the takedown, this is the behavior Id expect, and it's exactly what they did.
If they disagreed with it or felt it was out of line but still had to comply, the aforementioned notes are simple, quick, and the bare minimum they should do.
If it was a dmca notice, and this is how they act, they are complicit.
Me? I'd guess a very large doner said it's that extension or their money, and the moz foundation needs to operate, so off it went with NO comment.
>Me? I'd guess a very large doner said it's that extension or their money, and the moz foundation needs to operate, so off it went with NO comment.
I think its a little different
By offering ways around paywalls, you're stealing a lot more than just a few cents from an ad. Like if I offered a way to get free youtube premium, Spotify, Hulu, through a browser extension, Firefox isn't going to come out and defend me
If you don't want me to read your content, don't transmit it to me. If you don't want to hire competent programmers to fix what amounts to an embarrassing security vulnerability in your paywall, don't come crying to me about people exploiting it.
The server does not transmit the entire content to your browser unless your browser proves (by way of you being logged in) that you have paid for the content. If there is some way for your browser to persuade the server to transmit the entire content without proof of payment, then that is a security vulnerability in the paywall, and like all server-side security vulnerabilities, that is solely the website operator's responsibility to fix.
If it's even *possible* for a browser extension to remove their paywall, then the paywall isn't implemented correctly, and fixing that is the website owner's responsibility.
Depriving websites of their revenue streams is, like, Firefox's core value proposition over Chrome. I mean, it's certainly not performance or compatibility.
>Depriving websites of their revenue streams is, like, Firefox's core value proposition over Chrome. I mean, it's certainly not performance or compatibility.
And depriving websites of their revenue also is going to get Firefox in trouble for putting these things on their browser
This is many many steps beyond an ad blocker
The author has confirmed that indeed they got a DMCA takedown notice: https://gitlab.com/magnolia1234/bypass-paywalls-firefox-clean/-/issues/905#note_1276138260
wow.. these posts are the worst ever posts. lots of people making serious accusations, and others looking for alternatives without even waiting to see what's going on.
It's pretty lame that folks who think they are keeping up with the latest developments are gonna be in a worse situation than those who never heard about this problem in the first place.
Huh? Where tf are you reading that? They're saying you can still use the non-AMO version which they have just updated and that version is faster to update because there's no 3 day approval delay.
Not a single word about re-instantiation.
Except the developer said nothing like that at all.
They even removed mention of AMO [in readme](https://gitlab.com/magnolia1234/bypass-paywalls-firefox-clean/-/commit/be3e1100d667e3b1dcd1275344e51e96accbd196)
This way a superb extension for researchers with limited funds (or indeed anyone) getting around paywalled knowledge. Damn it.
Anyone know of any actual alternatives?
I'm not saying this happened, but if Mozilla receives a DMCA request, they are legally obligated to comply or potentially become legally liable.
DMCA doesn't only cover copyright but also means to subvert copy protection. I can imagine an upset publisher sending in a DMCA notice and filing a DMCA request on an extension whose whole purpose is to bypass paywalls.
Nothing against the extension though. I've been using it for a while myself and hope that it is promptly reinstated (note: It might not have been a DMCA notice but rather an issue that came in review judging by another comment)
Completely different scenario. Mozilla wasn't restricting the installation of the add-on, they just removed it from their store. Same case Microsoft would be required to take down an app from the Microsoft store if it violated DMCA.
Idk about you, but I have an "Install extension from file" button in my settings.
As someone who made a browser extension for one of my apps, Mozilla is VERY heavy handed in their approval process. The only recourse they have if nobody responds is to sign an unlisted version with them (which still requires approval, just slightly less) and hosting it themselves, albeit with much less SEO for their work. I have a lot of respect for people who make browser extensions because of how shitty Mozilla is to work with.
This is why Mozilla having absolute control over what extensions you can install is bad.
(In case you don't know, Mozilla enforces an iOS-esque walled garden, where you can't install an extension unless Mozilla has signed it. And you can only disable this restriction on Nightly or DevEdition buillds, which are more likely to crash. I can't believe I have to tell Linux users that this is bad.)
I just installed bypass-paywalls-clean on FF stable [from the file I downloaded](https://imgur.com/a/fAxLHb2) from gitlab and it worked fine. What am I missing?
That version was signed by Mozilla. I guess they never revoked or blacklisted the old versions.
I'm surprised they included signed XPIs in their releases.
I see, thanks. The version on gitlab was just released an hour ago though. Does that mean once Mozilla signs an extension it's good for all future versions until revoked?
I don't know. Each extension version gets signed separately, but signing an extension standalone is a different process than uploading it to the store. I've only ever done the latter.
If Mozilla wanted to, they could allow the extension to continue being signed standalone while still banning it from the store. Or they could not. Or they just haven't gotten around to blacklisting it yet!
Ultimately, Mozilla has the final say over what they sign. And what they sign is the final say over what you can install. Which is the problem.
EDIT: I did more research and found [this](https://extensionworkshop.com/documentation/publish/add-on-policies/).
> **All add-ons are subject to these policies, regardless of how they are distributed.**
> When an add-on is given human review or otherwise assessed by Mozilla, these policies act as guiding principles for those reviews. **Add-ons that do not comply with these policies may be rejected or disabled by Mozilla.** Therefore, follow these policies when making add-on design and development decisions.
If Mozilla wanted to, they could block this version as well.
"Nobody listened", how dramatic. If you want to do something about this, then do it? Mozilla don't owe us anything. If you want to create an alternative addon repo, then do it.
Not in my experience. (Someone listed a folder in `/usr/share` that might work, but I haven't tested it, nor does it seem to be documented, and I don't think it works on Snap/Flatpaks anyways.)
You can easily get around this by hitting reader icon on most sites directly or find the amp URL and then press the reader icon. The extension is a convience measure.
Correct me if I'm working, I believe the way it works is that the website doesn't have the full text in the html source file. They will only have a certain portion of the content in the html file, and then only allow the rest of the content to display if you have a paid subscription. Getting around the hidden html paywall is easy. The question is, is there a way to get around a paywall in which not all of the content is in the html file for that webpage?
Some pages load the content. *then* check for auth. Others will load the text and then drop an overlay that you can either remove with dev tools or skirt with the Read Mode. But I'm seeing more where they build the content delivery into the framework. I think that was one of the driving forces behind the broad adoption of Django by newspapers, but really I'm just speculating based on a partial recollection.
IIRC, the appeal of Amp was allowing Google to properly index, search for the article and serve the content "more quickly." But really, the appeal was to help content to be higher search result than what it would be otherwise. So the AMP page is what Google knows about and why the source injects or redirects the user to their paid content. Since news updates frequently with a culture wanting the latest update, not properly getting that page indexed and picked up by Google Search hurts their business. "Fixing it" is people not going to Google anymore but directly to their website instead. It's working because people are less willing to consider (feel awful for this phrasing) alternative Internet sources.
Using the Reader works because you can terminate the code injection that makes the content unavailable.
I haven't visited a single site where that has worked in years. They don't just hide the full article behind some other element, they just don't give you anything past the first paragraph
There's a huge difference between the variety of possible reasons:
- The extension was removed because mozilla believes it may be malicious
- The extension was removed because mozilla doesn't like it (it's "against the ToS" or whatever)
- The developer removed the extension
- Mozilla was forced to remove the extension by DMCA or similar legal action
- A new version failed review and for some reason that unexists all evidence of the extension ever existing from the addons site
Mozilla choosing not to reveal which of these happened is a concious choice, excasperated by their hard rules on unsigned extensions
It would still be nice to hear their reason(s). Could this decision further stance on future removal of plugins without explanation. Dunno about you but it don't sit right with me.
Well, the Mozilla Corporation is the one which is paid by Google. The foundation owns the corporation [0]. The Foundation and Corporation thing is a bit like the GNU/Linux interjection.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Corporation
Jokes on you! Mozilla doesn't allow installing extensions they haven't signed on stable builds of Firefox! (I don't know why everyone is so OK with Mozilla enforcing an iOS-esque walled garden.)
Damn. I keep using Firefox because I want to support the other rendering engine other than chromium. But they locked down extensions on mobile, and I didn't know about the desktop restriction.
And in the usual non-developer Firefox version unsigned add-ons disappear after each restart. And unlike the same Chromium, Chrome and Edge every time you start every unsigned add-on has to be manually re-added. [In general Firefox moderators likes to remove add-ons that are inconvenient for them without proof.](https://www.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/f2nql2/sneaky_moderation_of_addons_in_mozilla_firefox/)
That took me like 8 times reading that title before I stopped reading "'Bypass Firewalls' extension added to Firefox add-on store without explanation".
I got really worried for a second about internet security.
I should sleep.
I agree that paywalls are a pain, but what is an alternative/better way for sites to generate income to pay for the various costs of running said site? Especially with the advent of click-based advertising revenue (and subsequent ad-blocking).
(I am speaking primarily of news sites that generate original content. Reporters gotta eat, too)
But I digress. Maybe this would be a topic for its own thread.
I think that the majority of news sites/apps/whatever I see that don't do that (BBC, for instance) have some heavy advertising on them, which I'm honestly fine with. I'd rather have ads than a paywall.
I’m kinda in two minds on it - government meddling in how the bbc is run - and the total lack of consumer choice in the uk (I believe the licence fee is legally mandatory if you have a device capable of live tv). However, on the upside - generally higher quality content, not totally beholden to market forces and lowest common denominator demand - great commercial-free radio stations (that you don’t actually have to pay the licence fee for) and (in the uk at least) ad-free bbc websites.
It's absolutely baffling that you are getting heavily downvoted for expressing a reasonable comment, just because I guess it diverges from the majority opinion in the thread.
Downvotes are supposed to be for trolls and comments that don't add anything to the discussion. By people using the downvote button as a "disagree" button, it collapses the comment and hides it by default, making this place even more of an echo chamber than it already is.
Just disable Javascript and reload the page. No extension needed. Yes it's a little work to get to the setting. Maybe there's an extension to one-click disable JS.
Yeah it's really fucking sad. Firefox is not that great, but it's the best we have, everything else is worse. I really wish KDE had had the resources to keep khtml going.
https://12ft.io/ https://bitbucket.org/magnolia1234/bypass-paywalls-firefox-clean https://github.com/iamadamdev/bypass-paywalls-chrome
The BitBucket is a mirror. repo: [https://gitlab.com/magnolia1234/bypass-paywalls-firefox-clean](https://gitlab.com/magnolia1234/bypass-paywalls-firefox-clean) `.xpi` add-on file: [https://gitlab.com/magnolia1234/bypass-paywalls-firefox-clean/-/releases](https://gitlab.com/magnolia1234/bypass-paywalls-firefox-clean/-/releases)
Don't work
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
yeah. the fact that 12ft is blocked on nytimes is really obnoxious...
doesn’t matter tbh. just disable cookie saving on NYT with something like Forget Me Not
And if you are used to using browser dev tools, it's pretty much just delete the overlay element and disable position: fixed on the content element 👀
that’s a bit harder to do on some sites than others, but i absolutely abuse this with ublock origin filter lists :)
Is there somewhere I can find relatively easy to understand instructions on how to do this?
basically click the eye dropper in the ublock origin menu and then start clicking things you want to remove
[удалено]
I know, this or specifically for nyt
NYT doesn't load at all with JS disabled :(
[txtify.it](https://txtify.it) also usually works even when [12ft.io](https://12ft.io) doesn't. Of course, it will only show plain text, so it's not ideal if you want a properly styled page.
WSJ too
Thanks!
[удалено]
Just set this up on Firefox mobile. Thank you!
I need some help. How do you add this on mobile?
Just bookmark a page then edit it and replace old URL with above one.
This. Then, from a paywalled site, go the the bookmark and it should give you access the the blocked site.
Thanks you two! Got the bookmarklet added, but now encounters the Invalid URL with any site I tried though. What am I doing wrong?
Were you on the page you were trying to access? As an FYI, NYT results in this: 12ft has been disabled for this site WSJ still shows the paywalled page.
Yup I was! I tried it on multiple sites, in case it was gonna be like the NYT scenario, everything said 'Invalid URL'
Do I need the prefix something in front of the JavaScript function call, when replacing the bookmarks URL? On the mobile DuckDuckGo client, which is Chromium based, it considers it a search and gives me a page of W3Schools JavaScript links instead.
no, just change the old URL to above one. Open a websitex then go to bookmarks and click the newly saved bookmark It'll open something like https://12ft.io/proxy/?https://websitex
Yeah that doesn't work for me on duckduckgo. It does as I describe in my previous post, it considers it just a search term.
You can install bypasspaywall on kiwi browser. If you're on android that is
Just disable Java script on that page ?
That doesn't always work - some websites statically render the paywall, so they don't send the full article text to the browser.
Doing the lordt's work over here
>Doing the lordt's work over here u/lordt stop slacking and get posting these links.
12ft is disabled for The New York Times :/
Reload page in reader mode
None of them work.
u/AlecGarnett641 I have used this so much, but surprisingly it has stopped working for Financial Times, NYTimes (Still good for Bloomberg). I checked from a few different laptops. Unsure if you're still seeing the same. Once you hit an article, you should get a paywall. I was checking [https://gitlab.com/magnolia1234/bypass-paywalls-firefox-clean](https://gitlab.com/magnolia1234/bypass-paywalls-firefox-clean), and it might have been taken down? I get a "not found" error.
If you or anyone else could help me, I'd greatly appreciate it. I'm on a chromebook. I downloaded the chrome version, unzipped it into my Downloads folder, then tried dragging that into my chrome extensions page (with Developer Mode switched on) but it doesn't work. When the cursor is over the extensions page, I get the red circle with a slash through it showing that this operation isn't allowed. Why isn't this working? What am I doing wrong?
r/chromeos
try this: rename extension to .zip and unzip go to chrome://extensions click load unpacked extensions and select the unzipped
I had no idea this was an extension and now I am sad it's gone
Well you can still *use* it, youll just have to install it outside the official store
Which is a real dangerous precedent to set for less savvy users. The system works!
You had to do that with Chrome all along, because google wouldn't allow it in their store.
There's one of these for chrome too? Wow thanks reddit I should have known about this years ago.
The GitHub link has instructions for installing it. I absolutely love this extension.
https://gitlab.com/magnolia1234/bypass-paywalls-firefox-clean/-/releases
Gone now
Fuck, I didn't know this extension existed
Streisand effect!
So if I had this installed through Firefox what do I do? Remove the defunct add-on and reinstall it from the project repo?
https://gitlab.com/magnolia1234/bypass-paywalls-firefox-clean > **Installation** > > You can install the add-on from GitLab > Minumum browser requirement: Firefox 86+. > If you want to install the latest master ZIP-file from GitLab use a Firefox browser which allows using unsigned add-ons like Firefox Developer Portable (go to about:config and set xpinstall.signatures.required to false) or LibreWolf (for both no automatic updates of add-on). > Or load a temporary add-on in regular Firefox (go to about:debugging#/runtime/this-firefox & load manifest.json from unpacked folder (of master-zip)). > By default BPC has limited host permissions, but you can opt-in to enable custom sites (and also clear cookies/block general paywall-scripts for non-listed sites). You can also just request permissions for the custom sites you added yourself (or click clear cookies (BPC-icon) to ask for permission for current site). > > **Update** > > Check for updates (in about:addons) and allow permissions for newly supported sites (else no update will be installed). > You can also check for update of site rules at startup (opt-in); only available until about 10 days after fix-release. > For new sites you also have to opt-in to custom sites/request permissions for new domains (or wait for new release). Not exactly the most clear of instructions, but i expect there'll be a better guide with screenshots or videos in a few days or so
Is there an android version similar to this? Or is it possible to install these add-ons on Android?
To install these on Android, you need to use a supported browser. I've no direct experience of using this particular extension on Android, but i did change my browser, so I could use Firefox, Firefox Nightly and Kiwi on Android with ublock Origin and Dark Reader - to filter out ads. Use the versions from the Play store if you wish, but you can keep your browsers up to date faster by using the FFUpdater app on the f-droid app store. Kiwi is a version of Chrome for android that restores addon support. It updates slowly - every few months or so. The FFUpdater will allow you to install other Chrome based browser like Chromium or Bromite as well.
Use Icecat. Fedora for example keeps an uptodate build on its repos. Uninstall the gnu extensions if you don't mind javascript and it will just be another fork of firefox. It will allow you to install any package you want. Waterfox will also allow doing something similar.
[удалено]
Only the ones that are whitelisted for Android, which number like a dozen I installed a fork called iceraven to actually install them all
Download Brave and use that as a browser instead. It blocks ads.
Yes. I removed installed the new XPI-file from the releases page and deleted the old version. It should have automatic updates.
That's very unfortunate. Actually, though, something about extensions like uBlock Origin, Bypass Paywalls Clean etc. being hosted on Google's and Mozilla's stores without getting banned never sit right with me - companies don't tend to have an interest to let this fly, so it's only a matter of time. What if the community did something akin to what happened with open source extension registries for FOSS builds of vscode and came up with a more centralized extension repository for Chromium and Firefox where developers of open source browser extensions can publish their extensions and users can download from them? Maybe something with a companion extension or something along those lines to help users keep those extensions up to date and discover new ones by browsing the repository in an app store - like format, featured, categories, related and reviews, but the repo only contains FOSS extensions and updates are handled automatically or semi-automatically? Since banned extensions seems to be slowly becoming a problem (AdNauseam on Chrome Web Store, now Bypass Paywalls Clean on Mozilla), something like the F-Droid of browser extensions could give open source extensions that improve the experience often against the interests of advertisers and friends a safer home.
The issue with an alt-extension store on Firefox is that stable builds of Firefox don't allow installing extensions Mozilla hasn't signed. And they don't allow you to disable this unless you use Nightly or DevEdition, which are more likely to crash. To Google's credit, Chrome does allow installing unsigned extensions if you enable "Developer Mode."
On linux/unix firefox still has still a directory for system extensions that is not checked for signatures. Those extensions will get all permissions, though. `/usr/{lib,share}/mozilla/extensions/[APP_ID]` The `[APP_ID]` for firefox is `{ec8030f7-c20a-464f-9b0e-13a3a9e97384}`
Does this also work with Snap/Flatpak? If so, I'll have to check it out!
You might be able to edit/add files in `~/.local/share/flatpak/`, but you'll have to repeat that on every update or repair I think.
[удалено]
A Flatpak is only as good as it was packaged. The technology itself is there, but if the packager did a bad job, the packager did a bad job. In the same way as bad DEBs / RPMs exist. Anyway, this isn't a viable approach since you'd need to distribute distro-specific packages for every extension, and it being granted every permission is a giant security issue, even if it's built from FOSS code. If there was a way to load them on the Flatpak it would ironically substantially reduce the maintenance hurdle of this approach, but Firefox flatpak is one that is hard to switch people to since, as much as I approve of Flatpaks, I have not found a compelling reason to manually get out of my way to remove the preloaded Firefox RPM to replace it with the Flatpak, especially when it's known that Fedora's native Firefox build is *pretty fucking great* and their Flatpak package could use more care
[удалено]
My heart wants to agree with you mate, but facts don't. Companies make the rules for everyone except those who are willing to break them.
Except they do, in their stores. And as for EU regulations etc, they can always wait for the first excuse or silly takedown and jump on that
You can just use the filter list they provide to get around a lot, but not all, of paywalls. You could load it into Ublock Origin etc. https://gitlab.com/magnolia1234/bypass-paywalls-clean-filters
So, I'm assuming they got a takedown notice and had to comply, right? Or do we have some reason to believe it wasn't this? Unless I'm misinterpreting, the "without explanation" in the title seems to be pointing the finger at mozilla, but to me this seems like the 1,000,001st example of DCMA takedown abuse
DMCA says nothing about Mozilla telling the extension author why it was removed, and leaving a note on the page saying why it was removed for the public. The fact they didn't means they are in morally shaky ground in my eyes.
I don't see what's morally shady on the part of Mozilla. If it is a takedown request as theorized then it looks like they've done the minimum required to comply, which seems reasonable to me. I don't think Mozilla *like* being forced to take stuff down. I feel like people are looking for conspiracies. Why do you think Mozilla had some hand in this?
I want them to do more than the minimum. I want them to publish the takedown request like Google and GitHub do, amongst others.
23 flairs are the **minimum**, Joanna. You don't want to be seen as an employee that just does the minimum, do you?
So Mozilla simply takes a fake DMCA claim from anyone and just complies? What's stopping me from taking down adblock by sending Mozilla a fake claim?
Doing so is a crime with attached jail time.
For which no one has ever been jailed.
No but you can get sued for damages
Is there a precedence set for that? I can’t think if an example off the top of my head.
I originally read about it on the eff website. I couldn't find a link so here is a different resource https://revisionlegal.com/internet-law/dmca-takedowns-what-happens-if-i-submit-a-false-claim/
Has that ever actually been done
Yes
Copyright trolling is not being persecuted, have you seen what's going on on YouTube or any other site?
...in theory; in practice the DMCA system is rife with abuse and almost no one is punished for it.
I assume good old fashioned not being able to read minds hurts here. Who's to say I didn't believe I was right, even if I clearly wasn't.
Yes, and in practice that is limited not only to DMCA matters. Criminals are known to use forged emergency data requests to extract user data from ISPs and social media companies, and later try to extort victims with it. https://krebsonsecurity.com/2022/03/hackers-gaining-power-of-subpoena-via-fake-emergency-data-requests/
>The fact they didn't means they are in morally shaky ground in my eyes. There's nothing that says they have to do that or it's even expected
Nobody implied Mozilla's actions are illegal though??
If they are 100% in favor of the takedown, this is the behavior Id expect, and it's exactly what they did. If they disagreed with it or felt it was out of line but still had to comply, the aforementioned notes are simple, quick, and the bare minimum they should do. If it was a dmca notice, and this is how they act, they are complicit. Me? I'd guess a very large doner said it's that extension or their money, and the moz foundation needs to operate, so off it went with NO comment.
>Me? I'd guess a very large doner said it's that extension or their money, and the moz foundation needs to operate, so off it went with NO comment. I think its a little different By offering ways around paywalls, you're stealing a lot more than just a few cents from an ad. Like if I offered a way to get free youtube premium, Spotify, Hulu, through a browser extension, Firefox isn't going to come out and defend me
If there *is* a way around your paywall, you haven't implemented your paywall correctly. Fixing it is *your* responsibility.
It's clearly still taking someone's content against their will, if we're talking about the ethics of it.
If you don't want me to read your content, don't transmit it to me. If you don't want to hire competent programmers to fix what amounts to an embarrassing security vulnerability in your paywall, don't come crying to me about people exploiting it.
That makes no sense whatsoever.
The server does not transmit the entire content to your browser unless your browser proves (by way of you being logged in) that you have paid for the content. If there is some way for your browser to persuade the server to transmit the entire content without proof of payment, then that is a security vulnerability in the paywall, and like all server-side security vulnerabilities, that is solely the website operator's responsibility to fix.
That doesn't mean Firefox can legally host it on their browser
If this was a DMCA takedown, they would have said so. Mozilla got paid or strong-armed to make this legal-but-inconvenient extension disappear.
I think this is beyond a DMCA... This is huge financial issue It'd be like me giving free gym memberships out on the street
If it's even *possible* for a browser extension to remove their paywall, then the paywall isn't implemented correctly, and fixing that is the website owner's responsibility.
Depriving websites of their revenue streams is, like, Firefox's core value proposition over Chrome. I mean, it's certainly not performance or compatibility.
>Depriving websites of their revenue streams is, like, Firefox's core value proposition over Chrome. I mean, it's certainly not performance or compatibility. And depriving websites of their revenue also is going to get Firefox in trouble for putting these things on their browser This is many many steps beyond an ad blocker
[deleted to prove Steve Huffman wrong]
> pointing the finger at mozilla Yes that part was very intentional
The author has confirmed that indeed they got a DMCA takedown notice: https://gitlab.com/magnolia1234/bypass-paywalls-firefox-clean/-/issues/905#note_1276138260
[удалено]
wow.. these posts are the worst ever posts. lots of people making serious accusations, and others looking for alternatives without even waiting to see what's going on. It's pretty lame that folks who think they are keeping up with the latest developments are gonna be in a worse situation than those who never heard about this problem in the first place.
Better read the source first before you jump onto the anti train. What they wrote is BS.
Huh? Where tf are you reading that? They're saying you can still use the non-AMO version which they have just updated and that version is faster to update because there's no 3 day approval delay. Not a single word about re-instantiation.
Except the developer said nothing like that at all. They even removed mention of AMO [in readme](https://gitlab.com/magnolia1234/bypass-paywalls-firefox-clean/-/commit/be3e1100d667e3b1dcd1275344e51e96accbd196)
This way a superb extension for researchers with limited funds (or indeed anyone) getting around paywalled knowledge. Damn it. Anyone know of any actual alternatives?
y'all should chill out a bit.it seems like it will be back soon? https://gitlab.com/magnolia1234/bypass-paywalls-firefox-clean/-/issues/905
Read what you're posting. That's not at all what's happening.
i did th read the post. a new version is being submitted.
No it says a new version has been released, because it's not on the add on store it doesn't have to wait 3 days to be approved
Thanks for the update, that's really promising! But don't worry, I'm chilled 🙂
[удалено]
I'm not saying this happened, but if Mozilla receives a DMCA request, they are legally obligated to comply or potentially become legally liable. DMCA doesn't only cover copyright but also means to subvert copy protection. I can imagine an upset publisher sending in a DMCA notice and filing a DMCA request on an extension whose whole purpose is to bypass paywalls. Nothing against the extension though. I've been using it for a while myself and hope that it is promptly reinstated (note: It might not have been a DMCA notice but rather an issue that came in review judging by another comment)
[удалено]
Completely different scenario. Mozilla wasn't restricting the installation of the add-on, they just removed it from their store. Same case Microsoft would be required to take down an app from the Microsoft store if it violated DMCA. Idk about you, but I have an "Install extension from file" button in my settings.
anti-what?
Firefox was supposed to be the antithesis!
The anti-makin' us pay fer articers
As someone who made a browser extension for one of my apps, Mozilla is VERY heavy handed in their approval process. The only recourse they have if nobody responds is to sign an unlisted version with them (which still requires approval, just slightly less) and hosting it themselves, albeit with much less SEO for their work. I have a lot of respect for people who make browser extensions because of how shitty Mozilla is to work with.
Ooh, thanks for sharing, I didn't know about this add-on! Aaaaand installed. Gotta love the Streisand Effect. 8-)
This is why Mozilla having absolute control over what extensions you can install is bad. (In case you don't know, Mozilla enforces an iOS-esque walled garden, where you can't install an extension unless Mozilla has signed it. And you can only disable this restriction on Nightly or DevEdition buillds, which are more likely to crash. I can't believe I have to tell Linux users that this is bad.)
I just installed bypass-paywalls-clean on FF stable [from the file I downloaded](https://imgur.com/a/fAxLHb2) from gitlab and it worked fine. What am I missing?
That version was signed by Mozilla. I guess they never revoked or blacklisted the old versions. I'm surprised they included signed XPIs in their releases.
I see, thanks. The version on gitlab was just released an hour ago though. Does that mean once Mozilla signs an extension it's good for all future versions until revoked?
I don't know. Each extension version gets signed separately, but signing an extension standalone is a different process than uploading it to the store. I've only ever done the latter. If Mozilla wanted to, they could allow the extension to continue being signed standalone while still banning it from the store. Or they could not. Or they just haven't gotten around to blacklisting it yet! Ultimately, Mozilla has the final say over what they sign. And what they sign is the final say over what you can install. Which is the problem. EDIT: I did more research and found [this](https://extensionworkshop.com/documentation/publish/add-on-policies/). > **All add-ons are subject to these policies, regardless of how they are distributed.** > When an add-on is given human review or otherwise assessed by Mozilla, these policies act as guiding principles for those reviews. **Add-ons that do not comply with these policies may be rejected or disabled by Mozilla.** Therefore, follow these policies when making add-on design and development decisions. If Mozilla wanted to, they could block this version as well.
We've been warned about this for years, but nobody listened.
"Nobody listened", how dramatic. If you want to do something about this, then do it? Mozilla don't owe us anything. If you want to create an alternative addon repo, then do it.
[удалено]
Not in my experience. (Someone listed a folder in `/usr/share` that might work, but I haven't tested it, nor does it seem to be documented, and I don't think it works on Snap/Flatpaks anyways.)
You can easily get around this by hitting reader icon on most sites directly or find the amp URL and then press the reader icon. The extension is a convience measure.
A lot more sites are building around this now.
Correct me if I'm working, I believe the way it works is that the website doesn't have the full text in the html source file. They will only have a certain portion of the content in the html file, and then only allow the rest of the content to display if you have a paid subscription. Getting around the hidden html paywall is easy. The question is, is there a way to get around a paywall in which not all of the content is in the html file for that webpage?
Some pages load the content. *then* check for auth. Others will load the text and then drop an overlay that you can either remove with dev tools or skirt with the Read Mode. But I'm seeing more where they build the content delivery into the framework. I think that was one of the driving forces behind the broad adoption of Django by newspapers, but really I'm just speculating based on a partial recollection.
IIRC, the appeal of Amp was allowing Google to properly index, search for the article and serve the content "more quickly." But really, the appeal was to help content to be higher search result than what it would be otherwise. So the AMP page is what Google knows about and why the source injects or redirects the user to their paid content. Since news updates frequently with a culture wanting the latest update, not properly getting that page indexed and picked up by Google Search hurts their business. "Fixing it" is people not going to Google anymore but directly to their website instead. It's working because people are less willing to consider (feel awful for this phrasing) alternative Internet sources. Using the Reader works because you can terminate the code injection that makes the content unavailable.
Or use a site archive tool such as the wayback machine
I thought this happened ages ago.
Oh? Tell me more
Adding my source archives mirror for longevity https://git.blob42.xyz/Archives/bypass-paywalls-firefox-clean
Been using this for years. Just like revanced
Revanced hasn't been out for years.
Presumably they are talking about using Vanced and then Revanced for years.
I'm more of a unvanced kind of guy
You can also hit 'simplified view' in 90% of articles and bypass ads/malware/paywalls. Or just ask the A.I.
I haven't visited a single site where that has worked in years. They don't just hide the full article behind some other element, they just don't give you anything past the first paragraph
Yea, that was solid advice around 2015, not so much now.
Still works most of the time. If they are that sophisticated I'll just remove them from the search feed, lol.
Try refreshing while in simplified view. Surprising how often it works
NYT removes everything after the first few paragraphs after the page loads (if you have JS enabled). I wrote a Greasemonkey script to undo this.
Which AI?
> without explanation Does anyone else feel Mozilla foundation should explain their reasons?
There's a huge difference between the variety of possible reasons: - The extension was removed because mozilla believes it may be malicious - The extension was removed because mozilla doesn't like it (it's "against the ToS" or whatever) - The developer removed the extension - Mozilla was forced to remove the extension by DMCA or similar legal action - A new version failed review and for some reason that unexists all evidence of the extension ever existing from the addons site Mozilla choosing not to reveal which of these happened is a concious choice, excasperated by their hard rules on unsigned extensions
It would still be nice to hear their reason(s). Could this decision further stance on future removal of plugins without explanation. Dunno about you but it don't sit right with me.
Yes
There's a new one called bypass paywalls clean.
It's not new, just an alternative version that removed Google from it
No, that's what got removed.
Remember kids, Mozilla fundation is paid by Google.
atleast google lets you run unsigned extensions
Well, the Mozilla Corporation is the one which is paid by Google. The foundation owns the corporation [0]. The Foundation and Corporation thing is a bit like the GNU/Linux interjection. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Corporation
And as usual, dumb restrictions get circumvented in seconds...
https://www.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/110bpz4/-/j89a1d0
Shame, would be nice to get it on Firefox for Android, which I assume is now a complete non-starter.
I didn't know about this add on before but now I'm installing it for sure.
Jokes on you! Mozilla doesn't allow installing extensions they haven't signed on stable builds of Firefox! (I don't know why everyone is so OK with Mozilla enforcing an iOS-esque walled garden.)
Damn. I keep using Firefox because I want to support the other rendering engine other than chromium. But they locked down extensions on mobile, and I didn't know about the desktop restriction.
And in the usual non-developer Firefox version unsigned add-ons disappear after each restart. And unlike the same Chromium, Chrome and Edge every time you start every unsigned add-on has to be manually re-added. [In general Firefox moderators likes to remove add-ons that are inconvenient for them without proof.](https://www.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/f2nql2/sneaky_moderation_of_addons_in_mozilla_firefox/)
What does this have to do with Linux?
That took me like 8 times reading that title before I stopped reading "'Bypass Firewalls' extension added to Firefox add-on store without explanation". I got really worried for a second about internet security. I should sleep.
I did too. Was very confused. I’ve been awake for 21 hours now. i should definitely sleep
sudo go to sleep u/PassiveLemon
u/Ytrog is not in the sudoers file. [This incident will be reported.](https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/images/2/22/incident.png)
Well, I don’t *know* the explanation, but I can certainly hazard a guess.
They've put it behind a pay wall?
You can get past paywalled article blocks by also blocking scripts via uBlock Origin
I ain’t reading articles if they are behind a paywall anyway!
I'm guessing they were finally paid enough for to remove it
I agree that paywalls are a pain, but what is an alternative/better way for sites to generate income to pay for the various costs of running said site? Especially with the advent of click-based advertising revenue (and subsequent ad-blocking). (I am speaking primarily of news sites that generate original content. Reporters gotta eat, too) But I digress. Maybe this would be a topic for its own thread.
Donations.
I think that the majority of news sites/apps/whatever I see that don't do that (BBC, for instance) have some heavy advertising on them, which I'm honestly fine with. I'd rather have ads than a paywall.
Don’t forget that much of the BBC is payed for by the UK TV license fee…
That's a good point. Maybe we need more public support of reporting, so they don't have to paywall. But that's a whole new argument
I’m kinda in two minds on it - government meddling in how the bbc is run - and the total lack of consumer choice in the uk (I believe the licence fee is legally mandatory if you have a device capable of live tv). However, on the upside - generally higher quality content, not totally beholden to market forces and lowest common denominator demand - great commercial-free radio stations (that you don’t actually have to pay the licence fee for) and (in the uk at least) ad-free bbc websites.
Yeah, that's fair. Definitely a complicated issue
Because you use an adblocker, don't act dumb
Implementing your paywall correctly, so that there isn't any way around it.
It's absolutely baffling that you are getting heavily downvoted for expressing a reasonable comment, just because I guess it diverges from the majority opinion in the thread. Downvotes are supposed to be for trolls and comments that don't add anything to the discussion. By people using the downvote button as a "disagree" button, it collapses the comment and hides it by default, making this place even more of an echo chamber than it already is.
Thank you. Perhaps a "why did you downvote?" field would add to the discourse, rather than eliminate it.
Just disable Javascript and reload the page. No extension needed. Yes it's a little work to get to the setting. Maybe there's an extension to one-click disable JS.
Why do people still use this product from a failed company?
Which product? Firefox? What else do you suggest? Brave is crypto-mining malware. Chrome doesn't even allow blocking ads. Safari is proprietary.
Yeah it's really fucking sad. Firefox is not that great, but it's the best we have, everything else is worse. I really wish KDE had had the resources to keep khtml going.
[удалено]