You may have heard the term “paywall” — it’s when a web site limits the amount of content that you can see unless you sign up with them for a fee. This typically happens after you’ve viewed a predetermined number of articles, and that number is reset on a daily, weekly, or monthly basis (depending on their setup).

All of Toronto’s major daily newspapers have put up paywalls, including the Toronto Star, Toronto Sun, Globe and Mail, and National Post.

And they’re all just awful.

Much hooplah was made about a developer that bypassed the New York Times paywall a couple of years ago, yet little (if anything), has changed since. David Hayes, the developer who cracked the NYT paywall, claims it took him a lunch hour to write the bookmarklet that bypasses the newspaper’s paywall.

A couple of days ago when Sarah was hitting the Star’s paywall I decided to take a quick look at what would be involved in getting around it. Twenty minuted later I had bypassed the paywalls of all of the above papers, including the New York Times (before I’d read anything on the topic, I should add). It took another 30 minutes to produce a small, generic site script that makes the dewalling process just a little easier and faster.

I’m not blowing my own horn here. I’m no super genius and this “hack” could be accomplished by anyone with rudimentary web development experience. In fact, both Hayes’ code and my own are almost unnecessary; with a few extra steps, you can bypass these paywalls with no extra software or crazy hacking skills. Chances are good that you already know how to do it.

I can see some extra benefit to a utility that would assist in automatically navigating the paywall beyond the first article — so that you could click on the web page links instead of having to load article by article — but this was more of a proof-of-concept thing, and the proven concept is that paywalls are unfortunately simple to defeat.

I’m not currently posting my dewalling code publicly. However, I will detail why this problem exists, and what the papers can do to fix it (if you’re from any of the aforementioned newspapers, feel free to give me a shout).

So Why Are Developers So Dumb?

I don’t think they are :) And to be honest, I totally get why things were done this way.

When a typical web browser grabs the web page you request, it sends out some limited information for the listening web server on the other end. This includes listing the browser’s capabilities (what kinds of content it can handle), specifying what it’s looking for (usually the URL of the web page), and cookies.

The receiving web server has that, plus an IP address, to identify an individual reader over the internet.

The IP isn’t unique to you, it’s unique to your internet connection which may be shared by many devices (like the the internet box thing, a.k.a. residential router, in your home). Browser capabilities can’t be assumed to be unique, again, because of that shared internet connection thing. And cookies can be cleared with the click of a button.

Given these limitations, how are web developers supposed to identify unique readers while ensuring that other legitimate readers can still access the site?

Better to err on the side of caution and just use cookies, sometimes along with IP, rather than accidentally block readers. Paywalls are necessarily leaky.

So What Should They Do?

This is a tough one.

It’s tough because it puts the limitations of technology up against corporate culture and profits.

What this does is really call up the need for reflection on how the papers profit from their content, and to me it’s an all-or-nothing proposition.

One option is for the papers go all-in and make certain articles, sections, features, etc. fully pay-only. That means having to log in to access them, otherwise it’s an excerpt, or some sort of teaser, to the general hoi poloi.

Another, more Zuckerbergian option is to offer access in exchange for personal information. I’m not necessarily averse to this, but it also requires a content lock-down of some sort.

The current paywall solution is somewhere just above both of these, being easily circumventable but still acting as a deterrent to the average web user.

I would gravitate towards the nothing end of the scale with a nag solution where on every X views of an article, the non-subscribed reader receives a temporary pop-over message suggesting that they subscribe. IP address on the server could be used to determine how often to do this — it seems unlikely that shared connections would all be connecting to the same content source, and even so, all it would produce is a nagging reminder that people really do like the content. It’d be sort of like a local rating system with an option to subscribe.

Beyond that, there could be a mild nag every time, for non-subscribed users. This starts to get close to being just plain old fashioned inline advertising, which would be the next solution before nothing at all (full, free access to everything).

Of course, since the papers have full control over their sites, there’s theoretically no limit on how inline advertising could be accomplished. There’s the always classy Toronto Sun wall-to-wall background…

…but if that’s not the newspaper’s style, I’m sure there are other and more elegant approaches.

Ultimately, the decision is whether or not to lock away content. Logins are reliable, which is why they’re so popular. Identifying users without them is inherently unreliable. Either content can be locked away completely, or it should be assumed to be open to everyone. The seemingly in-between paywall solution is actually in the second family by reasons which I’ve explained earlier.

Astute web developers will point out that other mechanisms are available to bypass some of these limitations: Flash shared objects, or persistent browser databases. While these are a step beyond simple cookies, both are easily deleted as part of most modern browers’ cache management. In other words, they’re not much better than anything mentioned so far.

Browsers impose these limits to provide a level of privacy protection, and without requiring readers to manually enter additional information like a username and password, it’s tough if not impossible to pinpoint an individual human being. Without this exactness, any paywall or content blocking system is bound to be flimsy. The solution, at least at the present time, won’t involve technology; it’ll require high-level decisions about what will be locked away from the general public and what won’t.

An astute twiterrer noticed a motion by Councillor Adam Vaughan to not ban press or journalists from City Hall. The full text of the motion reads:

No media conference, no media event or news release by The City of Toronto and/or any agency, board or commission of the City, and/or any staff, hired consultant or elected official of the City of Toronto shall exclude by name any individual journalist or news organization.

The twiterrer in question alludes to this “ban” referring to the Toronto Star which has been quite critical of Mayor Rob Ford — as have many people and organizations. And Robbie doesn’t hide his disdain for the paper so this is certainly believable.

Here’s what I find extremely troubling; freedom of press and freedom of expression are ensconced in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms [section 2 (6)]. For Councillor Vaughan to have to pass a motion to guarantee this freedom at City Hall suggests a very troubling trend of silencing dissent, criticism, and opinions that are not directly shared by Ford and his cronies.

If this motion does indeed turn out to be a response to Ford’s attempt to exclude the Star from reporting on City Hall, his claim that the paper is “openly working against the democractic process” would be beyond hypocritical. Criminal, even. And again, this isn’t unimaginable — Ford has been accused of backroom dealings in things like the Port Lands redevelopment project; even some of his hand-picked Executive Committee are distancing themselves because of the public outcry.

The vote on this motion is supposed to take place next week on September 21 and 22. I’m sure many Torontonians would love to hear the details of why Vaughan thought it was necessary to make the motion. It may turn out to be a simple case of political grandstanding so passing judgement is definitely premature. However, I wouldn’t put it past Robbie to be trying to silence his critics, and if this is the case then we’ve got a serious problem at City Hall.

Out of TCL’s loyal following of at least three readers (hi mom!), I’ve recently received a comment that made me think that I need to clarify things a little. It has to do with veracity; the veracity of these posts. The truthicity of the blog.

In other words, do I make stuff up to fill in the spaces between the photos?

The answer to that is complex. I like to think of the question as an open-ended one, like religion or Marxism. Or the purpose of the chicken in crossing the boulevard. So the answer is, yes, I make up nonsensical sentences to sandwich between photos. Or are they so sensical that they’re BLoWINg yOuR MiNd?!

Okay.

However, I only make up stuff real-sounding stuff when it’s easy to verify as being made up. Like me being friends with George Clooney. I mean, if anyone took that seriously … I found that jerk passed out on my couch one Saturday morning, the whole place trashed, underwear of every gender on everything, I don’t know how many condoms on the living room table; I told him, if he’s gonna self-destruct, he’s not taking me out with him. He basically spat in my face for an answer. Friends, we are not.

Anyhow, I don’t feel it’s fair to pull the wool over anyone’s eyes when I talk about the day. If it was boring, I’ll just resort to writing a post in which I explain the factuality of the blog or some crap like that.

To confess, I do sometimes embellish. A little. A difficult woman with a large heinie may, for example, be described as a backside as gelatinous and stark as shrieking horror itself. But I don’t think the embellishment’s that extreme. And I think it helps get the point across: that the big-bummed woman was unpleasant.

I guess it’s the high school semester I spent hunched over the junior writer’s / gofer’s desk at the prestigious Scarborough Mirror, but that *umph* for journalistic integrity stuck with me. Journalistic integrity with irritable bowels. Sometimes uncomfortable and cramped, but relax and it’s party time in your pants.

So, since I’m on the ugly truth thing, I guess I should come clean about something. I didn’t care to see Natalie Portman today because something distracted  me. And it had something to WITH THIS!!

… no, wait. WITH THIS!!

To begin with, what’s with the giant blogTO plug? Who nibbled on who’s private parts to get that in there? This is the kind of thing that makes my inner journalist vomit internally.

Can you imagine TCL in print on the street? What a rude way to use to use a dead tree. Seriously.

Then, you’ve got this teeny-tiny format tabloid newsed-paper that looks suspiciously like the National Enquirer. It’s being handed out at strategic locations by … not my words … retro-branded “Newsies”. I shed a tear every evening watching them stand there on the corner pretending like the thirties are relevant to anyone. And for the dumb hats they have to wear.

When you visit the website of the paper, it’s suspiciously void of any information. Owned and operated by “three Torontonians”? That narrows it down to everyone here. Seems shifty. Real shifty.

And with all the free publications around town, t.o.night is stepping into a snug alley. I’m pretty sure that Now Magazine and Eye Weekly aren’t above administering a mugging.

Good luck, t.o.night. Because there’s an ass-kicking scheduled for t.o.morrow.