FOSSDLE PieFedThe IRS Tax Filing Software TurboTax Is Trying to Kill Just Got Open Sourced
☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆www.404media.co/directfile-open-source-irs-tax-…
0 Comments
Comments from other communities
foxglove (she/her)is there a way to de-paywall 404media.co?
Idk but if you're just looking for the repo I think this is it: https://github.com/IRS-Public/direct-file
AatubeNo paywall for this article yet: "Sign up for free access to this post", it's not a free trial.
Still a wall between people clicking the link and the content.
Which is also a wall between bots scraping the articles.
Support independent media.
No it isn't, they are letting bots scrape the articles just like every other news site for that sweet, sweet SEO. Why do you think the archive.is link has the full article?
This is literally why these sites have the free paywall. Some get bypased. In this case, I suspect 404 gave archive dot org access because they rely so heavily on that site for researching articles.
But. Regardless: if you think a journalism outlet is so evil and are scamming everyone... Maybe just ignore them because you clearly don't think they are worth your time.
Also: republican love people like you who do everything possible to attack independent journalism.
davelarchive.is/archive.today is not archive.org, and they did it without permission, because they never get permission.
This has no relevance to politics and I'm not attacking anything by saying forcing sign ups is a barrier to content or that you're wrong about it having anything to do with bots, you dork.
They don't have to be evil or scamming people for this to be a shitty barrier that prevents people from viewing the information.
jagged_circleIts called an authwall
setVeryLoud(true);It's generally for user data collection / sale and adding you to their marketing list.
James R KirkIt's to prevent scraping/harvesting by AI: https://www.404media.co/why-404-media-needs-your-email-address/
They do not ask for a phone number.
Indeed it is, but I'm concerned about the above, and thus don't create user accounts willy nilly.
I could use a fake name and fake email, but a lot of sites require that you validate your phone number too, and it's starting to become a lot of commodifiable data points.
... Have you tried? Been a minute since I signed up for my free "account" but I want to say the only requirement was that the email is a real one because you'll be sent an auth link whenever you login. No identification beyond that unless I choose to pay.
So... if you are truly concerned then use a VPN and a free email service every time you want to read this or any other independent media sites that use the same model?
The way I usually do it is by flagging the article and asking the mods to please ban articles from this site.
Post is low effort if OP didn't bother trying to find a source that's accessible to all. It only takes a few minutes ffs
Or OP just likes the independent outlet 404 Media, as I also do. Gizmodo features AI-generated articles (ones with the byline "Gizmodo bot"). It takes a simple adblocker or the bypass paywalls clean extension to bypass the authwall.
It doesn't matter what OP likes. We shouldn't be linking to inaccessible content on Lemmy. That's low effort posting that harms our communities.
First of all, you are on feddit.nl and cannot speak for"Lemmy". That said- if anything, "Lemmy" users should be supporting independent journalism like 404 Media.
In fairness, this is a dot ml board so 404 might get banned for completely different reasons.
What's the license?
Edit: Ugh, it's licensed CC0 public domain. Assholes.
Seems correct to me. It was paid for by the US public, using US public funds, it belongs in the public domain.
I also wish they had GPL'd it, but I'm not sure this would be appropriate here.
A copyleft would absolutely be appropriate here.
It was paid for with public funds.
CC0 = Everyone owns it, no one can claim rights to it
Copyleft = No one owns it, the code owns itself and claims rights to itself
Since everyone paid for it, everyone owns it.
If no one paid for it, or if a single owning entity is feeling benevolent, then copyleft is appropriate.
I assume it would be difficult to get the consent of every US taxpayer to license this as copyleft, I believe CC0 (or proprietary, unfortunately) is the rightful default when in this situation. It's debatable whether any government code should be proprietary, save for deployment secrets.
CC0 = gift to corporations at the expense of taxpayers
Copyleft = everyone owns it and all derivatives, even from corporations
Trust me, I get the feeling.
I'm only arguing from a legal standpoint, where it's more appropriate to have CC0.
Nah, that law was written before copyleft licenses were widespread. There are exemptions for contractors and some groups like USPS.
I'm saying that law is wrong, and it needs to be changed.
Not familiar how is that bad?
It means that any company can take that code, modify it (as would be required every year per IRS tax changes), and resell it without being required to publish the source code changes.
What many European countries are doing is requiring the government to publish code under a copyleft license. That would allow companies to also benefit from this code to make their own tools (which they could also sell), and it would require them to publish the source code of their improvements.
Basically copyleft legally ensures collaboration. Public domain does not.
geneva_convenience
CarcelThe law requires public domain for US Government works.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_status_of_works_by_the_federal_government_of_the_United_States
Night Monkey