Tried using it once and it was horrible.
this post was submitted on 04 Jun 2025
411 points (99.5% liked)
Open Source
37558 readers
160 users here now
All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!
Useful Links
- Open Source Initiative
- Free Software Foundation
- Electronic Frontier Foundation
- Software Freedom Conservancy
- It's FOSS
- Android FOSS Apps Megathread
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to the open source ideology
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Obligatory ➡️Fuck TurboTax⬅️ 🖕🤬🖕
is there a way to de-paywall 404media.co?
Idk but if you're just looking for the repo I think this is it: https://github.com/IRS-Public/direct-file
No paywall for this article yet: "Sign up for free access to this post", it's not a free trial.
Its called an authwall
It's generally for user data collection / sale and adding you to their marketing list.
It's to prevent scraping/harvesting by AI: https://www.404media.co/why-404-media-needs-your-email-address/
They do not ask for a phone number.
Indeed it is, but I'm concerned about the above, and thus don't create user accounts willy nilly.
I could use a fake name and fake email, but a lot of sites require that you validate your phone number too, and it's starting to become a lot of commodifiable data points.
... Have you tried? Been a minute since I signed up for my free "account" but I want to say the only requirement was that the email is a real one because you'll be sent an auth link whenever you login. No identification beyond that unless I choose to pay.
So... if you are truly concerned then use a VPN and a free email service every time you want to read this or any other independent media sites that use the same model?
I'm not talking about this website specifically, a lot of sites ask for way too much info.
I just click away when I see a login wall, regardless of requirements. If I really want to read it, I use 12ft.io or similar.
Edit: Here's a wall-less link: https://archive.ph/mFHH8
I really don't feel like setting up an alt email address just to read a single article.
Still a wall between people clicking the link and the content.
Which is also a wall between bots scraping the articles.
Support independent media.
No it isn't, they are letting bots scrape the articles just like every other news site for that sweet, sweet SEO. Why do you think the archive.is link has the full article?
This is literally why these sites have the free paywall. Some get bypased. In this case, I suspect 404 gave archive dot org access because they rely so heavily on that site for researching articles.
But. Regardless: if you think a journalism outlet is so evil and are scamming everyone... Maybe just ignore them because you clearly don't think they are worth your time.
Also: republican love people like you who do everything possible to attack independent journalism.
archive.is/archive.today is not archive.org, and they did it without permission, because they never get permission.
This has no relevance to politics and I'm not attacking anything by saying forcing sign ups is a barrier to content or that you're wrong about it having anything to do with bots, you dork.
They don't have to be evil or scamming people for this to be a shitty barrier that prevents people from viewing the information.
You know what an even bigger barrier is? Not existing.
Independent journalism is good. 404 is REALLY good (it comes out of all the best parts of Vice's tech reporting). They have a very small barrier that basically exists solely to fight bots as a mixture of reducing traffic load (keeping costs down) and encouraging people to actually consider supporting said independent journalism.
Instead we have chucklefucks immediately wanting to remove that paywall or outright accusing them of abusing SEO and data scraping and all that. And these are the same people who will then get mad when EVERYTHING is AI slop.
And this ties in directly to what right wingers want in terms of making the populace even stupider and more uninformed.
There's other methods of preventing scraping rather than requiring us to give up our data to view the content. Maybe they're perfect and it doesn't get sold or abused, but how can we know that for every single site? Also, how to we know it's secure forever, even when they enahitify in the future?
What's the license?
Edit: Ugh, it's licensed CC0 public domain. Assholes.
Seems correct to me. It was paid for by the US public, using US public funds, it belongs in the public domain.
I also wish they had GPL'd it, but I'm not sure this would be appropriate here.
A copyleft would absolutely be appropriate here.
It was paid for with public funds.
CC0 = Everyone owns it, no one can claim rights to it
Copyleft = No one owns it, the code owns itself and claims rights to itself
Since everyone paid for it, everyone owns it.
If no one paid for it, or if a single owning entity is feeling benevolent, then copyleft is appropriate.
I assume it would be difficult to get the consent of every US taxpayer to license this as copyleft, I believe CC0 (or proprietary, unfortunately) is the rightful default when in this situation. It's debatable whether any government code should be proprietary, save for deployment secrets.
CC0 = gift to corporations at the expense of taxpayers
Copyleft = everyone owns it and all derivatives, even from corporations
Trust me, I get the feeling.
I'm only arguing from a legal standpoint, where it's more appropriate to have CC0.
Nah, that law was written before copyleft licenses were widespread. There are exemptions for contractors and some groups like USPS.
I'm saying that law is wrong, and it needs to be changed.
Not familiar how is that bad?
It means that any company can take that code, modify it (as would be required every year per IRS tax changes), and resell it without being required to publish the source code changes.
What many European countries are doing is requiring the government to publish code under a copyleft license. That would allow companies to also benefit from this code to make their own tools (which they could also sell), and it would require them to publish the source code of their improvements.
Basically copyleft legally ensures collaboration. Public domain does not.
SHEEEESH that's dope