Why did Bypass Paywalls Clean by Magnolia1234 disappear? It is not malware and I use it on all of my web browsers? Please reinstate bypass paywalls clean when you get this.
I’m guessing it’s dodgy or illegal based on the name of the project. So I don’t think you will see it being reinstated unless it is a legal project.
It is not illegal, the answer is that I decide what is acceptable on my computer, not the corporations. At no point does it interfere with the serving of the webpage to anyone other than ME, it only blocks paywall scripts and adds usersripts to what is MY local copy of the webpage on in MY internet browser on MY computer. Other than that it provides the functionality to redirect the webpage to search engine archives and the 12 foot ladder. I decide how MY computer works based on what I want it to do. MY computer is MY property and the lemmings at the new york times don’t get to tell my how MY computer should work. If the new york times doesn’t like my preferred javascripts than they don’t have to install them, but they do not get to tell ME what javascripts I cannot or can use on MY computer, because MY computer is MINE and it belongs to ME. I wish to get in touch with gitlab because gitlab interfered with my contract known as the MIT license between ME and Magnolia1234 and are liable for the disrupting our agreement and my right to use the source code in MY browser.
1 Like
The repository name suggest bypassing paywalls. Sounds illegal to me, I suggest you google it which provides info like I quoted above. A MIT license doesn’t allow illegal activity. So sure you can decide to do illegal things with your computer if you like. Good luck with that. Don’t expect Gitlab or anyone here to help you with that.
I have flagged your post to Gitlab Forum Admins/Mods so I am sure it will be dealt with appropriately.
The use of a project may, in certain situations, be illegal, but that does not make the project itself illegal, in the same way a web browser or other software can allow illegal activity by giving someone a way to access illegal content, but is not illegal itself.
Reporting this post does nothing either, as there is nothing for GitLab Forum moderators to moderate - this is just a request for comment regarding the removal of a project and/or user. It is nobody’s right here to enforce what someone can or can’t do with an open source project, especially under a license such as the MIT license.
Unfortunately you are wrong. If you are using Gitlab’s system/servers, and that project promotes illegal activity for bypassing paywalls, then Gitlab have every single right to remove and block that project. I am sure they will have gotten a request about it, just like when YouTube has video’s removed. Gitlab are responsible for their servers. The MIT license has nothing to do with that, and doesn’t and cannot stop Gitlab from removing it from their servers.
Now, if the project was on a private server and publicly available then that is a different matter. Gitlab at that point have no control of the content on a private server, whether it uses Gitlab, Github Enterprise, Gitea, or other kind of hosting software.
Gitlab do not need to explain to you or anyone why it was removed. They can if they wish, but they are not obliged to.
I get what you’re saying, but how is client-side editing of what appears on my browser page illegal? If that’s the case, I may as well go to prison for using Firefox’s Reader mode, installing uBlock Origin, or inspecting element to copy the plain text of the article.
I wish you continued the quote. Remember that anyone can file a DMCA takedown. If sites should respond to any DMCA takedown, they’ll eventually shut down every repo. GitLab is not a small company: it boasts more than a thousand employees. Unfortunately, it’s GitHub, ironically owned by Microsoft, that’s recognized how the DMCA is often used as a tool by multi-billion-dollar industries to take down software like downloaders that they don’t like.
Yes, GitLab can take down anything they like. It’s a private company. But they don’t get to dictate they’re on better principles, or that they will defend their users when push comes to shove. Money talks, I guess.