Masquerade your browser

It is no secret that news sites allow access to news aggregators and search
engines. If you check Google News or Search for instance, you will find articles
from sites with paywalls listed there.

In the past, news sites allowed access to visitors coming from major news
aggregators such as Reddit, Digg or Slashdot, but that practice seems to be as good
as dead nowadays.

Another trick, to paste the article title into a search engine to read the cached
story on it directly, does not seem to work properly anymore as well as articles on
sites with paywalls are not usually cached anymore.

Update: The Wall Street Journal announced that it will plug the hole described
below. You can still read articles behind the site's paywall however using the
following method:

Press F12 when you are on the article page with the cut off article, and the
request to subscribe to read it in full.
Open the console tab.
Paste javascript:window.location="https://m.facebook.com/l.php?
u="+encodeURIComponent(window.location.href);
Hit enter.
The page should reload, and the article should be loaded in full. You could also
post the article link on Facebook, for instance in a new post that only you can
see. Clicking on the posted link should load the article in its entirely on The
Wall Street Journal website.

User-Agent and Referrer

You are probably wondering how sites block or allow access to the site's content.
The methods have have improved over the years, and it is no longer enough to simply
change the referrer of the browser to https://www.google.com/ to gain full access
to a site's content.

Instead, sites use various checks that include user-agent, referrer and cookies,
and sometimes even more than that, to determine the legitimacy of access.

General information

Probably the best way to masquerade the browser is to make it appear to be

Googlebot.

Referrer: https://www.google.com/
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Googlebot/2.1; +http://www.google.com/bot.html
Firefox

referrer

Firefox users need two browser add-ons for that: the first, RefControl, to change
the referrer value when visiting news sites, the second, User Agent Switcher, to
change the user agent of the browser.

Download and install both extensions in the Firefox web browser.

Tap on the Alt-key, and select Tools > RefControl Options.
Click on "add site", enter a domain name under site, select custom action, and
enter https://www.google.com/ as the referrer.
Repeat this for all news sites you want to access (some may not work even if you
make the changes, so keep that in mind).
When you are done, close the configuration window.
Tap on the Alt-key again, and select Tools > Default User Agent > Edit User Agents
from the menu.
Select New > User Agent, and replace the string in the User Agent field with
Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Googlebot/2.1; +http://www.google.com/bot.html). Name it
Googlebot.
Exit the menu.
Before you access these sites, tap on Alt, and select Default User Agent >
Googlebot.
This is all there is to it. It is a bit unfortunate that there is no extension for
Firefox that changes the user agent automatically based on the sites you visit.

Google Chrome

Google Chrome users can install extensions like User Agent Switcher and Referer
Control that are available for the browser to do the same.

There is however another possibility, and that is to create a custom extension

which automates the process in the browser.

Instructions are provided on Elaineou. All it takes, basically, is to create a new

directory on the local computer, create the two files background.js and
manifest.json inside it, and copy and paste the code found on the site into the
files.

You need to enable "developer mode" on chrome://extensions/, and can then select
"load unpacked extension" to pick the folder you have created the two files in to
load the extension in Chrome.

You may modify the list of sites it supports to add new ones.

Summary
Read articles behind paywalls by masquerading as Googlebot
Article NameRead articles behind paywalls by masquerading as Googlebot
DescriptionPaywalls prevent Internet users from reading one or more than a handful
of articles on news sites. Find out how to access these articles nevertheless.
AuthorMartin Brinkmann
PublisherGhacks Technology News
LogoGhacks Technology News
WE NEED YOUR HELP
Advertising revenue is falling fast across the Internet, and independently-run
sites like Ghacks are hit hardest by it. The advertising model in its current form
is coming to an end, and we have to find other ways to continue operating this
site.

We are committed to keeping our content free and independent, which means no
paywalls, no sponsored posts, no annoying ad formats or subscription fees.

If you like our content, and would like to help, please consider making a
contribution:

DONATE VIA PAYPAL

ABOUT MARTIN BRINKMANN
Martin Brinkmann is a journalist from Germany who founded Ghacks Technology News
Back in 2005. He is passionate about all things tech and knows the Internet and
computers like the back of his hand.You can follow Martin on Facebook or Twitter
View all posts by Martin Brinkmann ?

Previous Post: � First Look at Brave Browser for Windows

Next Post: Kiddle: Google-powered safe search engine for children �
Comments
Jimmy James said on February 26, 2016 at 7:47 am
REPLY
Well if they were subtle with their ad placements and respectfully asked people to
turn off their addblocker for their site, then the system wouldn�t be broken. Like
the ads on Ghacks are not invasive and don�t bother me at all :)

Rick said on February 26, 2016 at 8:41 am

REPLY
Martin, your link to refcontrol is wrong. It is pointed at Referrer Control that
does not allow site specific referrals from what I can see.

Martin Brinkmann said on February 26, 2016 at 9:16 am

REPLY
Thanks, corrected the link.

tim said on October 16, 2018 at 10:36 pm

REPLY
nice and easy way to get peoples facebooks bro

Anonymous said on November 13, 2018 at 11:39 am

REPLY
Is this true?

Owl said on February 26, 2016 at 8:43 am

REPLY
Peope use adblockers because of tracking, malvertizing and sleazy ads. I don�t know
what the technical issues are, but why don�t sites go to static banner ads? On tech
sites, ads for tech things, etc. No need to block ads then.

Decent60 said on February 26, 2016 at 5:18 pm

REPLY
Some sites sell ad space but it�s less $$ in the long run (not to mention more time
consuming) than having a script that pulls information and relative ads based upon
what�s in the user�s cache.

Personally, I don�t mind the Tracking so much, but what I hate (and what originally
got me started using adblockers) is ads that ruin the page layout (WordPress
operated sites are what started it for me) and now ads that play audio instantly,
even if I have such things turned off in my browser.
I used to listen to music on my home theater system attached to my computer (or
even when I use headphones), it gets very annoying to have an ad that plays louder
than my music to come through with � XXXX can help treat your erectile
dysfunction�. My neighbors actually complained about that ad rather than the music.

Martin Brinkmann said on February 26, 2016 at 5:27 pm

REPLY
I�d love to host all ads on my server and deliver them as static images or text,
but this is not feasible for many reasons (time, getting advertisers to buy
directly from you, hosting your own ad server, managing campaigns, payouts�).

I�d love to see a company create a service that would provide only these types of
ads. I could see the operators of Startpage or DuckDuckGo start such a service, as
they have experience in running ads without tracking users and probably also the
resources to create one.

Tmue said on February 26, 2016 at 9:05 am

REPLY
This seems to be the correct link toRefControl:

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/refcontrol/

Shivraman said on February 26, 2016 at 9:24 am

REPLY
Thanks for educating us readers about AdBlockers first and now how to bypass
paywalls.

yoav said on February 26, 2016 at 9:33 am

REPLY
The problem with the paywalls is that you can�t share anything you read or refer
people to the article, because you can never be sure who has access. So for me
bypassing them is besides the point.

Jojo said on February 26, 2016 at 10:30 am

REPLY
Just copy the whole article using something like Pocket or to the clipboard and
then save it somewhere. Not that complicated�.

Rick said on February 26, 2016 at 6:08 pm

REPLY
There is a wonderfully fantastic firefox addon:

http://maf.mozdev.org/

It allows you to save an entire page in a single file.

Dave said on February 27, 2016 at 10:33 am

REPLY
Personally I prefer UnMHT which saves excellent MHT files.

dingoloid said on December 5, 2017 at 5:12 pm

REPLY
A better firefox plugin is personal blocklist you add POS paywall sites to the list
and they never show up in Google search results again.

Angry Thinker said on February 26, 2016 at 10:03 am

REPLY
Thanks Martin :-)

CHEF-KOCH said on February 26, 2016 at 10:27 am

REPLY
:-)

Tom Hawack said on February 26, 2016 at 10:22 am

REPLY
Especially news sites are concerned indeed, whatever the country perhaps; here in
France all the same.

If plain news can be accessed anywhere it is of course the editorials, the news
analysis, which are the loss when not partially/totally accessible because of the
sites� policy.

I won�t go through the hassle of installing two add-ons, of which one having to be
manually triggered each time, in order to read more. If I were committed to a news
source (or to any other genre) I�d consider paying for it. No such commitment at
this time though.
What I don�t understand is that the percentage of guests on a news site (or other)
which do not use an ad-blocker doesn�t seem to allow a required income for those
sites. Is it so that ad-blocking is becoming so intensive that the natural balance
between ad accepted and ad refused is no longer a sufficient ratio to allow sites
to live or is it that their profit is destabilized? I always thought that there
would be enough users accepting ads to balance correctly those refusing it.

I don�t want to compare what is not comparable yet I�ll dare this : you really have
to be very fond of a lady to not search elsewhere when she seems far too demanding.

Yuliya said on February 26, 2016 at 1:18 pm

REPLY
�that the percentage of guests on a news site (or other) which do not use an ad-
blocker �

I think this could be roughly calculated by the number of users that a browser has
and the number of users the more popular ad blocking extensions have. Few years ago
I remember the number of users who had an ad blocking extension installed (or any
extensions at all) was quite low. Things might have changed though, I noticed even
PCs at my college had ABP for Firefox installed.

Martin Brinkmann said on February 26, 2016 at 1:26 pm

REPLY
Most sites report between 10% to 20%, but on tech sites like mine, it is more than
40%. In my opinion, sites will find new ways to adapt to the situation or die, and
it will not be pretty for Internet users as content will get worse.

I expect to see more advertorial content and the pushing of affiliate links
directly in content. It is already happening, and morally less stable sites may
have no issues pushing stuff that sells in articles, and even write articles around
these directly.

I�m still trying to figure out how to survive the next 30 or so years.

Tom Hawack said on February 26, 2016 at 2:08 pm

REPLY
Martin, 40+% of users blocking ads would be less a problem if advertisers shared
income in a more fair way.
The users are in between an advertisement terrorism and the acknowledgement that
sites indeed have to make their way. Of course it is possible to make per-site
exceptions (tough nevertheless when the browser�s ad-blocker is backed-up my
system-wide blockers) but the problematic is elsewhere, and I believe this
elsewhere is not in advertisement as such but in the very policy of the
advertisement policy : 1- No honest deal with the �vectors� when the share is
balony, 2- No honest deal with the users (the consumers) when malvertisement is not
eradicated, when the very philosophy of the business is to force and not seduce, to
try to enforce by all means delivered ads after imported tracking, but never (even
if a few voices are heard here and there) to promote better quality, less quantity
in the scope of respect. Not only respect when a new way of advertising would be
profitable to all� except perhaps to the advertisers themselves.

it�s a true problem, but I will not accept ads as they are now and will always
prefer to pay a website without any intermediaries which make a living in the old
import-export scheme, that is buying/selling comfortably installed and emphasizing
on the margins, that of differentials : the least they could do is reconsider their
attitude. They want war and they have war, what more to say?

Tom Hawack said on February 26, 2016 at 2:27 pm

REPLY
@Yuliya, I have friends who are advocating another way of dealing with the problem
of Web sites existence. Up to now I had to disagree but I�m starting to wonder if
they are not right when they state that individuals/companies that make it right
are those which don�t depend on their sites for a living, those which have a site
as a window to their business which is elsewhere. News sites are moving from paper
to digital supports, they have no other income and ads is essential and therefor
anti-adblocking as well�. we�re likely to assist to the disappearance of many sites
which have no other income than the ads, unless they manage a faithful audience of
subscribers ready to spare a few bucks, so many sites requiring low fees. Anyway
one thing is sure : you don�t make business from a website alone, if so you
struggle to survive.

Corky said on February 27, 2016 at 6:49 pm

REPLY
@Tom Hawack, IMO the amount of people blocking adds would drop if 1) They were less
intrusive (audio, obscuring content) and 2) They didn�t crash or lockup people
browsers (not responding, plugincontainer.exe using all available RAM (4GB+))

Tom Hawack said on February 27, 2016 at 7:29 pm

REPLY
@Corky, I believe so as well. I�m convinced that a wide majority of anti-
advertisement users don�t hold this position for a whatever anti-system demagogy
reason. Advertisement in itself is not the problem from there on, I believe
bringing to others� attention your work, your product is a natural component of
mankind, at least within the trade scheme.

Now, if advertisers calmed down a bit, stopped being hysterical and started
thinking on a long-term, they�d realize that there is one and one only alternative
to keep their business flourishing : less ads, better ads, advertisement police to
break malvertisement (Web specific of course). The customers would spend less on
ads, those ads bothering less the consumer (or not at all, who knows?!), they would
be more productive. In this scenario everyone wins except the ad business in terms
of income : there is a too big part of the cake swallowed by the ad business, and
this is a fundamental, root problem.

Jojo said on February 26, 2016 at 10:33 am

REPLY
There is a FF extension called Paywall Pass. Used to work like a charm but lately
doesn�t work at all. But maybe something to do with my computer or that I switched
to FF ESR not too long ago. So perhaps it will work for others.

Rocky said on February 26, 2016 at 10:54 am

REPLY
Martin,
I find the content of this article to be very close to crossing a line on
fairness/fairplay. If a site chooses to implement a pay model then seeking to
bypass that model in order to access content sits uncomfortably with me . I agree
that the ads can be disconcerting and I wish that some sort of accepted practice
could be developed in that regard but as Tom Hawack says �If I were committed to a
news source (or to any other genre) I�d consider paying for it�

Tom Hawack said on February 26, 2016 at 11:18 am

REPLY
@Rocky, and before letting Martin reply for himself, I just wish to bring this
precision since you�ve mentioned my comment : my statement regarding paying for a
site I�m committed to is motivated by practical reasons (the hassle of getting two
add-ons or bringing up a dedicated script scheme) rather than by an ethical
approach, unfortunately. Not that I�m an evil person but because of the easiness �
when applicable � of getting things for free when it�s not too much of a work. To
W(w)ome it may concern : forgive me!

Martin Brinkmann said on February 26, 2016 at 12:45 pm

REPLY
Rocky, I agree with you 100% that paying (or displaying ads) is the honorable thing
to do if you access a site�s content regularly. I think it is important that
content producers get paid for their work.

Rotten Scoundrel said on February 27, 2016 at 5:05 pm

REPLY
Straying OT here. :)
Martin, in a fit of compassion for your monetizing the site, which I fully
understand and agree with, I decided to free up your site from adblockers in my
browser. So, I commanded UBlock to accept all on this site now and for the future.
The same for Adblock and refreshed the page. I got a single picture ad, so I
thought this ain�t that bad.

But then I noticed, �Advertisement� and large blank spaces sprinkled down the right
side of the page where something else was obviously blocking those ads. I checked
noscript and there are about 10 other sites that I needed to allow. Including
things like Font managers. Those sites offering fonts do so, so they can get a
taste of the tracking dollars too. It is not like there not enough free fonts in
the world already that a site needs to use a specific Font for something.

And, there�s the rub. It is not all about unblocking your ads, it is about
unblocking my browser to all sites who advertise on your site. So for now, I am OK
with unlocking ublock and adblock, but I�ll be damned if I will unlock my browser
to all the others.

To see a most egregious example of hangers-on go to the Fox-site for Hell�s Kitchen
videos. Turn off noscript then when the video runs, check it for how many sites are
in that list. I stopped counting at 37.

So, to me, it is up to the advertisers to play fair if they want me to open my

browser for them. It then falls to the webmasters of the sites I visit that want me
to then open my browser, to use ads that follow a set of moral and ethical rules.

Martin Brinkmann said on February 27, 2016 at 5:35 pm

REPLY
From a user perspective, that�s bad and I know that. I keep away the nasty ads and
stuff here on Ghacks for the most part, but there is only so much that I can do
about it from my end.

The situation would be better with a dedicated sales team or enough pull to attract
premium advertisers (still waiting for that Microsoft email ;P).

Yuliya said on February 26, 2016 at 1:10 pm

REPLY
Not necessarily. You may come from a Google search to a website that is using this
model, yet you have never visited that website and you may also have no intentions
to do so in the future. It�s either let me see the content that I�m looking for or
get out of Google�s results list. Otherwise it�s just a waste of my time and my
bandwidth. Not only that, but you�re only being offered a weekly/monthly plan. I
just want one article, or rather one paragraph from it.

Make it obvious so I don�t click on that result at all, at least. Otherwise, once
the page is in my PC one way or another I feel that I am allowed to alter its
content in any way that I can. (from that screenshot it looks like the kind of
website that loads the whole page in background but it restricts your view with an
overlay)

Pants said on February 27, 2016 at 3:36 am

REPLY
^^ This.

Google (although its not a problem of their making) should mark paywalled sites as
that. I don�t begrudge a site deciding on a paywall � that is their decision. I
also do not begrudge sites getting listed on google search, as it�s rather
essential to drive traffic. But they know this and use it to allow access and
either show a snippet to TEASE you, or use asshat crap like Wired (it�s not
paywalled) where slightly into the article an overlay will come up and block
everything (easily bypassed, BTW).

I don�t begrudge a site using ads (but I do hate ad networks that have no interest
in advert control � eg bullshit flash/animation/letting malware thru/not forcing
https/audio/autoplaying etc etc) but I do not like sites that use too many ads or
use asshat things such as adverts following around the page.

I also don�t begrudge the tracking, if that makes adverts more effective. I would
rather there were less ads because they are more effective. As long as I, as an
individual, can block the tracking, I don�t care.

This article is about paywalls, but ties into advertising models. The whack-a-mole
game of adblockers and adblock killers, and adblock killer blockers, and anti
adblock killer blockers .. ad nausuem will continue. It�s really starting to heat
up and I can see the point where most major sites will PUSH data, it�ll all be
server-side � eg, IF your browser has accepted a cookie, and IF your browser has
allowed connection to certain third parties, and IF your browser has downloaded the
adverts (say, into local dom storage), then, we will push you the article text and
images. Whether you allow your browser to display the ads is irrelevant. The
website has done it�s job in serving an ad and will be paid.

Henk van Setten said on February 26, 2016 at 12:46 pm

REPLY
There is a huge moral difference between using ad blockers, and using tricks to
bypass a paywall. I feel the first is morally acceptable, while the second is not
acceptable at all.

Using an adblocker means refusing the �gift� of some advertisements that a

publisher wants to push to your device without you asking for them. Put simply, of
course you�re quite free to refuse anything you didn�t ask for in the first place.
No problem at all (except the publishers� need for a better ads strategy).

Using tricks to bypass a paywall is a very different thing, though. It means you
are sneakily using backdoors to get a product that you�re supposed to pay for,
without paying for it. In plain old language we have a simple word for that: it�s
called stealing. Or shoplifting.

So I must say I�m really disappointed that in this case, Martin Brinkmann degraded
his usually excellent blog by telling people where to get the best lock picking
tools. Stealing is unacceptable; but promoting burglar tools isn�t very acceptable
either.

Just my opinion, of course.

Tom Hawack said on February 26, 2016 at 1:08 pm

REPLY
The difference is not plain semantics and I agree with the terms of this
distinction. But I do not believe morality is concerned when the link between
information and promotion is by itself a debate, especially on the Web. Are search
engines promoting terrorism, pornography, hatred when they include links to sites
that do? My opinion is that morality is a very personal matter and becomes
proselytism when served as an argument in the pertinence of informing or not. Heck!
Would be promotion a developed argument incentivizing a given practice, and as far
as I understand it information is not an argument by itself, unless to consider
that a reader is totally irresponsible, acknowledging that such a consideration is
the basis of demagogy and dictatorship.

Martin Brinkmann said on February 26, 2016 at 1:19 pm

REPLY
As a webmaster, I have to disagree. I understand that this is a controversial topic
but from a revenue point of view, it makes no difference if people are using
adblockers or bypassing paywalls.

DVD Rambo said on February 26, 2016 at 4:18 pm

REPLY
Martin,

I like to turn off adblocking on useful sites like yours. However, with Ghacks
allowing video ads (two running, currently from Sekindo) to eat into my limited
bandwidth, I will now use adblockers all the time. I think it would be a public
service if you no longer allow video ads, and move to static ads only. I�ll PayPal
you $10 to help with your site. Should I use news@ghacks.com to send the money. I
will not use GoFundMe as they have spammed me in the past and are now blacklisted
on my mail server. Thanks for your excellent site.

Martin Brinkmann said on February 26, 2016 at 4:25 pm

REPLY
Thanks for your support. You can use the PayPal link on our support page for that:
https://www.ghacks.net/support/

Rocky said on February 26, 2016 at 7:56 pm

REPLY
I agree Martin that from a Revenue point of view there is no difference between
adblockers and bypassing paywalls There is a big difference though between blocking
ads that are presented to you and bypassing paywalls by masquerading/pretending to
be somebody other than yourself.

I prefer if I can to leave ads to display for the simple reason that content
providers have to be remunerated in some way � I can envisage blocking some
disruptive or indeed unacceptable ads ( I am constantly getting ads about Asian
( or other ) ladies which I find to be objectionable ads � no idea why these ads
present as my web browsing is not in any way towards anything �iffy�) . I could not
see myself though attempting to bypass paywalls in the manner envisaged in this
article.

If websites cannot find some way to temper the more extreme ad providers then the
Web could indeed be at a tipping point.

Jeffrey said on February 26, 2016 at 2:02 pm

REPLY
Martin

Something that has worked for me on some sites it to use Chrome�s �Open Link in
Incognito Mode�. Granted this will not be effective everywhere, but it helps me
when I go over the NY Times� limit of 10 articles per month.
Martin Brinkmann said on February 26, 2016 at 2:13 pm
REPLY
You could also delete cookies in normal mode, but private browsing mode works fine
as well on sites that rely solely on cookies.

Jed said on February 26, 2016 at 3:22 pm

REPLY
I tend to avoid paywalled sites and look for the same information elsewhere, their
loss. I also use an adblocker and block trackers with no qualms. If it was a couple
of text ads along the side with maybe a small picture like you get in newspapers
then I wouldn�t mind, but instead there�s moving ones, ones that autoplay videos,
and lots of large, in your face ads etc that detract from the website experience.

oz said on February 26, 2016 at 4:40 pm

REPLY
Good information presented here, so thanks for that and for being so �open-
oriented� in all your other articles. I do block ads and a few other things on this
site, but I did make a donation a few months back, so hopefully that evens things
up a bit. I generally don�t take the extra time to sign in, but do check for tips
like this several times each day, and do post as a guest now and then.

Thanks again for everything.

mkdante381 said on February 26, 2016 at 6:31 pm

REPLY
For noobs!! Dear author pls change link to
https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/addon/refcontrol/ and browser automatically
redirect to your language�

beach boui said on February 26, 2016 at 6:37 pm

REPLY
Internet advertising purveyors are killing themselves. The loud, flashy, attention
grabbing ads are more than annoying. They harder they try to grab our attention,
the more determined we become to avoid the noise, both visual and audible. The
public will accept advertising that doesn�t hurt their eyes or insult their
intelligence. The problem is not with the users, or the sites that allow third-
party advertising. The problem is with the companies that create and place the
third-party advertising.

SortingHat said on February 27, 2017 at 12:36 am

REPLY
It�s because they are like roaches when we shine the light on them they freak out
about it. It�s a sign our broken capitalist/monopoly system is a cancer and we are
seeing the early stages of monetary cancer in our society.

Mick said on February 26, 2016 at 8:51 pm

REPLY
I use a variety of means to get around paywalls, depending on the site in question.
The extension Paywall-Pass might still work from time to time, in other cases it�s
getting there from the Google search for the title, yet other cases might call for
turning on private mode, and sometimes it�s just enough to turn off JavaScript on a
particular page to get read of the blocking ad.

Rotten Scoundrel said on February 27, 2016 at 5:10 pm

REPLY
The rather obvious thing, well to me, is that the �news� in question is available
for about a zillion other sites that are scraping the likes of the WSG et al. So
why bother getting through a paywall?.
Use google for a search if you must, but then use something like dogpile (or any
other search aggregators) for drilling down on a story you want to read in full for
free. :)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_aggregator

br33ch said on March 5, 2016 at 10:23 pm

REPLY
I just need to mention that this should not be left on permanently because some
sites may be configured with a firewall that can detect it. WordPress running
WordFence for example allows blocking from 1 minute to 1 month.

Big Maq said on March 8, 2016 at 8:10 pm

REPLY
The Elaineou solution in Chrome works for the front page and major sections of the
WS Journal.

However, when checking a specific article, got the same paywall issue.

Am I missing something?

Paula said on May 15, 2016 at 12:22 pm

REPLY
Unfortunately doesn�t work anymore for most of the sites.

kalmly said on May 16, 2016 at 4:36 pm

REPLY
I am very late to this discussion, and I don�t have anything helpful to add to it.
I do want to say this: Sadly, I had to turn my adblocker back on for this
(Martin�s) site because my browser was eating up resources to the point it took
forever to open a page when I clicked a link. I tried stopping the videos on the
page, but that didn�t help much. When FF began to hang and crash, it was too much
to put up with.

SortingHat said on February 27, 2017 at 12:34 am

REPLY
It�s because it thinks you are using a touch device. If you aren�t using one it
will slow everything way down as resources are being used up to try to make your PC
into *Phone* mode. Not to mention spy stuff both from advertising and government
crap will make your CPU go almost to 100% unless you have Don�t Track Me turned on.

RmR said on July 13, 2016 at 12:54 pm

REPLY
When it says to create new directories and files, are those text files and folders
respectively?

Lenny Schafer said on September 7, 2016 at 11:41 pm

REPLY
I would be willing to pay a yearly reasonable flat fee that would allow me to enter
any paywall; granting me a total number of entries however I would like to spend
them. This is what I call a �seasons pass� model. This is a business waiting to
happen as the paywall thing grows. Another small business project would be the
creation of a paywall filter app that just automatically IDs and blocks such
listings on news aggregators. Maybe these things already exist; anyone reading this
let me know.
All the workarounds I have found so far are complicated and annoying.

Klaus said on September 24, 2016 at 8:47 am

REPLY
Before I go to all the lengths downloading and implementing what you described
above, do you know whether it works on Sueddeutsche Zeitung? They still have enough
ads on their sites. I just don�t see why they have a paywall. They won�t make
enough money to rescue their ailing, but otherwise excellent, newspaper.

JohnB said on January 19, 2017 at 4:57 pm

REPLY
Brilliant. Thank you. For me, this method allows Firefox to bypass the paywall on
most major news sites.

�It is a bit unfortunate that there is no extension for Firefox that changes the
user agent automatically based on the sites you visit.�

Actually, contrary to what the article states, there *is* an extension called
UAControl that will automatically set the User-Agent on a per-site basis:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/uacontrol/

Just install this extension and configure it to use the �Googlebot� user agent
settings for each news site you want to access.

Voila! � you no longer need to manually set the User-Agent every time you want to
access a news site.

PB said on February 12, 2017 at 9:53 am

REPLY
If websites asked for a reasonable fee to access their articles most people would
take up the offer. The problem is that they are much too greedy.

SortingHat said on June 10, 2017 at 5:13 pm

REPLY
I agree 20 dollars a month will take away paying rent/utilities.etc. Paywalls only
those with good jobs can afford it and that is an ever shrinking few.

Bri said on February 19, 2017 at 3:17 am

REPLY
Thank you :)

SortingHat said on February 27, 2017 at 12:30 am

REPLY
Since the smartphone industry has come about in the mid 2000s the global elites
have decided that you as an individual have no rights to own media and not only not
own media but not even own the switch to turn it on!

Smartphones may sound cheaper then a computer but you pay thru th3e nose for every
stupid thing and the costs escalate very quickly where on a PC at least it used to
be you just pay for your internet connection and not much else as you wouldn�t
share personal info online and you could access your media anytime you wanted and
share it sometimes up to 3 devices or even unlimited like how Amazon Mp3s are.

Now it�s all different to train young millennials to accept a one world system
where it will be in your forehead/forearm and to put up or shut up. Nope not going
to work here!

BTW: I�m typing on a DESKTOP computer not a mobile phone. :) I got a keyboard and
mouse but most websites are designed with touch screen in mind which is why we need
Ad Block or the whole web would be totally jumpy and unusable not just the site you
go to.

SortingHat said on February 27, 2017 at 12:32 am

REPLY
Most websites are mobile only now like YouTube if you put your computer to sleep
and turn it back on you briefly see the mobile version of YouTube and it looks all
different then a minute later it reverts itself back to desktop mode.

On Mobile mode you can�t see the comments unless you use the touch sensitive pad to
scroll way down and on a PC phone oriented sites look ugly and hard to navigate.

The reason sites use the slide show format for everything is because it is set with
you using your finger to swish thru them and on a tiny screen you only see one
frame at a time where on a DESKTOP or even a laptop you will see the whole thing.
It comes across as awkward.

SortingHat said on June 10, 2017 at 5:11 pm

REPLY
When the internet was more newish the world leaders and elite have not any need or
care for it. Now that governments have been overthrown via the use of smartphones
they are suddenly paranoid if it can happen there it can happen here!

Sadly they are focusing on invisible terrorists which are just ordinary citizens
and ignoring the real flags and go thru the whole *right wing Christian terrorist*
bull shit witch hunt. The web is pretty much locked down now and the only people
who use it are those who shop and chat. Google uses Watson AI (the dumb version)
that just generalizes popular searches and gives you what it thinks people want the
most and that will be anything related to *shop and chat* if you search for
anything outside of that you will just confuse it further giving you weird results.

No it�s not you being an idiot. It�s not your keyboard acting up and clearing your
cache won�t fix a damn thing. The fault lies in the algorithm itself.

The internet is shopping channel 2.0 now and if you type in research stuff your a
freak that deserves to live in a cupboard under the stairs. At least that�s the
minds of the super rich and wealthy. The government all they think is your the next
Jihad terrorist or right wing terrorist or upper wing terrorist or any kind of wing
terrorist.

jg said on August 1, 2017 at 8:45 pm

REPLY
SortingHat
agreed

Ronaldo said on October 25, 2017 at 9:27 am

REPLY
Just my 2 cents here. This webbrowser seems to bypass most of the major newspaper
paywalls straight off the bat. Just tried it, LATimes, Chicago Tribune and even
NYTimes seems to work.. amazing stuff. Not sure if this was the intended use
though, but it works :)
https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/web-captain/id1296674405

xavest@gmail.com said on February 24, 2018 at 4:16 pm

REPLY
RefControl does not seem to be supported by Firefox any longer. Does anyone know
how to do the same with Referer Control (not the same add on as the later), and
User-Agent Switcher?

Anonymous said on October 3, 2018 at 11:28 pm

REPLY
There are better methods to bypass walls now.
Frits said on October 26, 2018 at 6:55 pm
REPLY
So as ?

Frits said on October 26, 2018 at 6:56 pm

REPLY
Like which ones ?

Leave a Reply
Comment

Check the box to consent to your data being stored in line with the guidelines set
out in our privacy policy

Please note that your comment may not appear immediately after you post it.

Be polite: we do not allow comments that threaten or harass, or are personal

attacks. Please leave politics and religion out of discussions!
Name

Email

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without
commenting.

Search �
GHACKS NEWSLETTER SIGN UP
Please click on the following link to open the newsletter signup page: Ghacks
Newsletter Sign up

POPULAR POSTS
Your Firefox extensions are all disabled? That's a bug!
What Mozilla needs to do now (after cert add-on disabling disaster)
Mozilla plans to enable Hyperlink Ping Tracking by Default in Firefox
Firefox 69: userChrome.css and userContent.css disabled by default
Google still on track to limit ad-blockers in Chrome
What you need to know about add-ons in Waterfox 68
Gmail tracks all your purchases, it is difficult to delete them and impossible to
stop
A wave of malware add-ons hit the Mozilla Firefox Extensions Store
Firefox 66.0.4 with add-on signing fix release on its way
All existing issues with Windows 10 version 1903 (May 2019 Update)
RECENTLY UPDATED
Assign custom vibrations to your Android contacts
UbuntuPhone OS ships with Firefox and Chromium
OUYA video game console available for preorder on Amazon
Skype app for Windows 8 gets file sharing
Bing Maps gets huge high resolution update
FileActivityWatch: monitor read/write operations on Windows
Latest Windows Updates and Service Packs overview
Firefox 68 features a new Add-ons Manager
Firefox 69 gets a password generator
Microsoft Edge (Chromium) may also block media keys on Windows 10