Looking for help here. I created a new Firefox profile and wanted to load the Bypass Paywalls Clean Add-on/Extension from the XPI file. So I did what I've always done and got the message displayed above.

Then I went into about:config and changed both xpinstall.whitelist.required and xpinstall.signatures.required to false. Fully exited and restarted the browser but still, no dice.

Anyone know how to fix this?

SOLUTION: go to extensions.blocklist.enabled and turn it to false

top 15 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] masterofn001@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 hours ago

Glad you've found the solution.

There is almost always a solution in about:config to a number or privacy/security issues.

[–] primrosepathspeedrun@anarchist.nexus 70 points 17 hours ago (3 children)

Oh they're actively deciding what you can do with the software now. Cool. Love that.

[–] sabreW4K3@lazysoci.al 14 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

If they didn't have safeguarding in place, I'd be more worried. As with all things Firefox, it can be overridden.

[–] pixeltree@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 7 hours ago

"This isn't safe" is very different from "I've arbitrarily decided you shouldn't be able to use that"

[–] kirk781@discuss.tchncs.de 24 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

I don't understand why Mozilla is so smitten with this extension. They already removed it from AMO, why are policing it now. A tiny minority of folks use Firefox(as a percentage of market share) worldwide and only some part of it use this extension. Why go after it so hard?

They are policing it today, tomorrow they may say uBlock Origin violates our policies as well. Sure, technically one might be able to install via changing about:config toggle but that's a bridge too far for most users.

It might seem I am making a huge mental jump for equating a paywall bypass extension to an adblocker extension, but in the eyes of corporations, both kind of users are equally loathed by them.

[–] kattfisk@lemmy.dbzer0.com 20 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

The purpose of this add-on is solely to circumvent access restrictions to copyrighted works. It is clearly a circumvention tool under the DMCA and therefore illegal to distribute in the USA.

The policy violation is that it breaks US law.

Guessing here, but Mozilla likely blacklisted it to disable it for all those who had it installed and cover their ass legally. Nobody can accuse them of aiding in the distribution of this illegal tool anymore.

While uBlock could be used for the same thing, it has a different primary use (blocking ads, which is still legal), so a similar charge against it might be successfully fought.

The DMCA is a fuck.

[–] mp3@lemmy.ca 6 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (1 children)

But even then, they're only liable if they distribute it themselves. Why go the extra mile of blocking the addon being sideloaded, as it's solely done by the user?

[–] kattfisk@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 6 hours ago

My guess: The blocklist is the only way they have of removing it for all those who download it from them when they previously distributed it. And they do that so they can not be held liable for those copies.

A company like News Corp might go "This was downloaded 50 000 times from you and can be used to bypass access control on 10 000 000 of our articles which would otherwise cost $20 each. So we are suing you for 10 trillion dollars in losses. See you in court."

[–] unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 14 hours ago

This isnt news tho, its been banned for years.

[–] ReedReads@lemmy.zip 72 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago)

SOLUTION: go to extensions.blocklist.enabled and turn it to false.

If you have a custom user.js or user-overrides.js you might want to just add this to the file.

[–] mp3@lemmy.ca 41 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

You can also use this filter list in uBlock Origin as an alternative

https://gitflic.ru/project/magnolia1234/bypass-paywalls-clean-filters/blob/raw?file=bpc-paywall-filter.txt

[–] FuCensorship@lemmy.today 8 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (1 children)

As BPC adds new sites to its list, it makes Firefox ask the user to accept access to those which can get annoying. Not to mention the developer keeps getting banned everywhere he puts it and you gotta hunt where the new updated extension is.

So my question is, does the list on uBlockO works as well as the extension?

[–] mp3@lemmy.ca 3 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

I would have to do a one-for-one comparison, I haven't checked that.

[–] FuCensorship@lemmy.today 1 points 3 hours ago

Yeah, I just asked because I remember with the "I don't care about cookies" that got sold to Avast there was also a uBo list but I remember still seeing cookie banners that would not show with the extention.

[–] orbituary@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 17 hours ago

I just reinstalled it this morning on Waterfox and Fennec.