IMDb are getting above themselves

@Karen_P  1) If you read fast enough, you can see the word "yesterday" before they send you the subscription request. 2) If you spam "refresh" and get lucky, you can glitch the subscription request and see the full article. 3) The user could make a 24h-free account and send a screenshot of the page to the staff.

Not every stranger who visits that site is obstructed by a paywall for not being logged into the site.

Speaking of luck and Web server behavior, I recently temporarily experienced a problem with Instagram, whereby it would redirect my Web browsers to the Instagram login screen, no matter which profile I accessed, and was apparent that this based on my Internet address. I had never experienced this before with Instagram, and I felt quite unlucky at that time. Lord knows what criteria that Web server administrators may be reserving for blacklisting of Web clients around the world. Of course, with Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) at the Wide-Area Network (WAN) level, a person's modem can easily be assigned an Internet address that was previously assigned to some kind of vicious lamer. There is no way for any content provider to really guarantee and uniform experience to its audience. The incidences of false positives seems inevitable. Plus, some websites (and algorithms) are just flat out discriminatory.

@jeorj_euler  Luck is not even needed, It takes me 1 min and 25 sec to glitch one of The Telegraph's page and avoid the paywall on Microsoft Edge. Proof: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WKdQXSV_-Au8T4J5uxOTzFPjpFijMMmG/view?usp=sharing For your interest: On The Atlantic, the technique works, but it is faster to delete your cookies. On The New York Times, the technique doesn't work, you need to delete your cookies. I haven't found a way for it to work on WSJ.

Well, my point was that I didn't observe a paywall at all for The Telegraph (unless maybe I didn't give it enough time to pop up, pop over), so I wouldn't even be motivated to look for a way to glitch past it. As for The New York Times, I did notice a long time ago that filters anonymous visitors by how many visits per session, whereby differentiation among sessions is predicated upon cookie data. I don't recall ever visiting the website for The Atlantic, which is kind of odd (interesting) that the opportunity never seemed to present itself, but that's perhaps simply a matter of faulty memory, since it is bound to be frequently cited as source. That bit I expressed about Instagram is something that cannot be circumvented without a change of the Web client's Internet address, and as I understand it, the company's reason for doing it has to do with blocking anonymous visitors who surf or "stalk" the Web via Virtual Private Network services.

Oh thank you! :-) I will move that credit then.