Two things.
First, a note about the FAQ. The FAQ is correct in saying that - the ads and original content are unaffected in a visual sense. You are still seeing the ads. But they are cached ads, meaning they are the ads newsblur was given when they cached the site. No ad network wants this - they want you to hit the ad servers yourself, to get “personalized” ads or to at least log the crap out of you and track you across websites. Websites need to keep their ad providers happy. The publishers themselves also generally want the hit - they want to know what stories are popular, where the users are coming from, etc. If they didn’t care about any of this stuff then they wouldn’t be feeding you a truncated RSS feed and you wouldn’t need story view!
Second, how it actually works (on the dev server). Now I am not yet (plan to be when android app is improved) a paid user of Newsblur, although I think its probably the best replacement and blows my mind that’s its a one man show. Off track, my point being I only had 12 sites to check, several which had their original views “disabled.” In my tests I found that the “Original View” is indeed a cached copy of the site homepage served from Newsblur’s servers - this is what publishers/advertisers object too. I did find however that the “Story View” is an frame of the actual publisher website.
You imply a question of why cache the view? Again, this is my opinion based on the behavior of Newsblur I see because Samuel has yet to comment. Anyway the “original” view is likely cached because that is how Newsblur can mark stories as read as you scroll through the original view. Newsblur probably reads the DOM of the site to understand where stories change, and can thus mark your unread items off as read as you scroll down the page. Cool feature indeed, and probably can’t be done with a frame. Thus the cache! And it’s the cache publishers/advertisers object to, possibly even with legal grounds. Thus the process to remove them Newsblur follows.
However, Newsblur disables both the cached original view and the non-cached story view on disabled feeds. My question - why block the story view too?
From what I can tell, this is how Newsblur works now:
- Cache original view but frame story view.
- If publisher objects, disable both views.
Obviously, many of us users find this non-ideal. I can think of two alternatives.
Ideally, if Newsblur wants to keep caching, then it could:
- Cache any views it wants.
- If publisher objects, stop caching and instead frame all views.
Or the other alternative:
- Stop caching, frame both views.
- Publishers have no ground for objection.
Unless I am unaware of some problem with framing? I’ve been on the internet forever and never heard any such thing. According to Stanford’s Copyright and Fair use and a Wikipedia summary of court cases, there is no legal problem.
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyrigh…
Of course the publishers are free to put framebusters on their site, which I’m free to strip out with a browser extension.