no, archive.today (and similar services like the Wayback Machine) work by fetching the page directly through their own servers, essentially acting as a headless browser that renders the page and saves a snapshot. the archive service itself makes the HTTP request, executes JavaScript, and captures the resulting document object model - no subscriber involvement required
soft paywalls are enforced by JavaScript running in your browser - the server sends the full article content regardless, and then the JavaScript checks if you’re a subscriber and hides or blocks it if not. when archive.today or a self-hosted tool like ArchiveBox fetches the page, it gets the full content directly from the server before any of that JavaScript enforcement runs. the server doesn’t know or care whether you’re a subscriber, it just responds to the request
I always assumed that wasn’t the case because Paywall bypass extensions are not linked in a reply when someone screams about paywalls in a thread on Reddit or Lemmy. Why is that possible, but not possible with a browser extension?
Soft paywalls only exist on badly made sites (which make up a large part of all sites so it’s still more effective than it has any right to be).
Many news sites with paywalls have a proper hard paywall. The only way to get around those is with an account or with an exploit. Neither of those two are going to be published for use in an extension though (as it’d get deactivated very fast).
no, archive.today (and similar services like the Wayback Machine) work by fetching the page directly through their own servers, essentially acting as a headless browser that renders the page and saves a snapshot. the archive service itself makes the HTTP request, executes JavaScript, and captures the resulting document object model - no subscriber involvement required
Ah I see, thanks for the correction!
So there is no subscriber at all? How do they get past the wall that requires the payment?
It’s fun how I got a few replies, and none of the answered my very precise question.
soft paywalls are enforced by JavaScript running in your browser - the server sends the full article content regardless, and then the JavaScript checks if you’re a subscriber and hides or blocks it if not. when archive.today or a self-hosted tool like ArchiveBox fetches the page, it gets the full content directly from the server before any of that JavaScript enforcement runs. the server doesn’t know or care whether you’re a subscriber, it just responds to the request
Thanks!
I always assumed that wasn’t the case because Paywall bypass extensions are not linked in a reply when someone screams about paywalls in a thread on Reddit or Lemmy. Why is that possible, but not possible with a browser extension?
Are soft paywalls uncommon?
Soft paywalls only exist on badly made sites (which make up a large part of all sites so it’s still more effective than it has any right to be).
Many news sites with paywalls have a proper hard paywall. The only way to get around those is with an account or with an exploit. Neither of those two are going to be published for use in an extension though (as it’d get deactivated very fast).