Hubbry Logo
BugMeNotBugMeNotMain
Open search
BugMeNot
Community hub
BugMeNot
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
BugMeNot
BugMeNot
BugMeNot
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

BugMeNot is an Internet service that provides usernames and passwords allowing Internet users to bypass mandatory free registration on websites. It was started in August 2003 by an anonymous person, later revealed to be Guy King,[1] and allowed Internet users to access websites that have registration walls (for instance, that of The New York Times) with the requirement of compulsory registration. This came in response to the increasing number of websites that request such registration, which many Internet users find to be an annoyance and a potential source of email spam.[2]

Key Information

Use of the service

[edit]

BugMeNot allows users of their service to add new accounts for sites with free registration. It also encourages users to use disposable email address services to create such accounts. However, it does not allow them to add accounts for paid websites, as this could potentially lead to credit card fraud.[3] BugMeNot also claims to remove accounts for any website, requesting that they do not provide accounts for non-registered users.

To help make access to their service easier, BugMeNot hosts a bookmarklet that can be used with any browser to automatically find a usable account from their service. They also host extensions for the web browsers Mozilla Firefox (but not on Firefox quantum yet), Internet Explorer, and Google Chrome (the extensions were created by Eric Hamiter with Dmytri Kleiner and Dean Wilson, respectively).[citation needed] There are also implementations in the form of a BugMeNot Opera widget, or UserJS scripts along with buttons, which makes it fully browser-integrated. An Android application is also available.[4]

Opting out

[edit]
The original BugMeNot website

BugMeNot provides an option for site owners to block their site from the BugMeNot database, if they match one or more of the following criteria:[5]

  • A community site where users register to change content, but not to view it (example: Wikipedia)
  • The site is pay-per-view
  • There is a fraud risk associated with the site due to accounts containing private financial information

Wikipedia logins are in the database under wikipedia.net because wikipedia.com and wikipedia.org have been banned under the first criterion.[6]

Temporary shutdown and return

[edit]

Nearly a year after it was created, BugMeNot was shut down temporarily by its service provider (at that time), HostGator. The site's creator claimed BugMeNot's host was pressured by websites to shut them down, though Hostgator claimed that the BugMeNot site was repeatedly crashing their servers.[7]

The BugMeNot domain was transferred briefly to another hosting company, dissidenthosting.com, but before the site was set up, it began to redirect visitors to web pages belonging to racist groups, without the knowledge or consent of the site's owner. BugMeNot moved again, to NearlyFreeSpeech.NET. BugMeNot's move to this provider, which also hosts a number of highly controversial sites, prompted BugMeNot's creator to say, "Personally, I don't care if I'm sharing a server with neo-Nazis. I might not agree with what they have to say, but the whole thing about freedom of speech is that people are free to speak."[8]

Shortly after BugMeNot returned, reports surfaced that some news sites had begun to attempt to block accounts posted on BugMeNot, though the extent and effectiveness of such efforts, as well as compliance with BugMeNot's Terms of Use,[9] are not known.

RetailMeNot

[edit]

The operators of BugMeNot expanded the "MeNot" network in October 2006 with the addition of RetailMeNot – a service for finding and sharing online coupon codes. Users can add coupons they have found through any method, as well as a description of the coupon and an expiration date. Users can also scan in printed coupons and upload them for others to print.

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

BugMeNot

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
BugMeNot is an online service launched in by developer Guy King as a simple weekend project, designed to let users share and retrieve credentials for websites that impose mandatory registration barriers to access free content. The platform quickly gained traction among users frustrated by the proliferation of sign-up walls on news sites, forums, and other resources, allowing them to bypass creating disposable accounts that often lead to unwanted and privacy intrusions. Its defining characteristic lies in credentials from volunteers who register accounts specifically for sharing, fostering a community-driven to overzealous registration practices prevalent in the early web. However, BugMeNot sparked significant controversies, as content providers, particularly newspapers, viewed shared logins as undermining their business models and responded with technical countermeasures like IP tracking, CAPTCHAs, and requests to delist credentials for premium sections. Debates over its ethics and legality ensued, with critics arguing it violates and potentially enables abuse, while proponents defended it as a legitimate against unnecessary barriers to access.

Overview

Purpose and Core Functionality

BugMeNot operates as a community-maintained database of shared usernames and passwords, enabling users to circumvent mandatory registration barriers on websites that restrict access to free content through requirements. Developed in response to widespread "registration walls" on outlets, forums, and informational sites in the early , it addresses user friction by providing alternative credentials without necessitating individual account creation or submission. This approach minimizes exposure to practices, such as harvesting for or tracking, while facilitating quick, one-off access to non-paywalled resources. At its core, the service relies on voluntary contributions from its user base, who register disposable or shared accounts on target sites and submit these details for communal use. Users query the database by entering a site's domain, retrieving available logins vetted through feedback on reliability, thereby promoting efficient, privacy-preserving navigation across diverse online platforms. Empirical indicators of effectiveness include per-site success metrics derived from user votes; for example, logins for history.com maintain a 59% success rate across 66 evaluations.

Technical Mechanism

BugMeNot maintains a basic that catalogs username and password pairs keyed to specific domains, populated exclusively through voluntary user submissions rather than automated scraping or generation. Submissions occur via a minimal on the site's dedicated page, where contributors input the target site's , username, , and optional ancillary details such as addresses. This user-driven input process ensures the database remains lightweight, with entries stored in plain-text format accessible without proprietary encoding or complex indexing beyond domain-based lookups. Retrieval operates through a direct query mechanism: users enter a website's domain into the homepage search field, prompting the server to return matching credentials from the database in a simple list view, all without necessitating registration or on BugMeNot itself. Each entry displays associated metadata, including a community voting interface ("Did this login work? Yes/No") that aggregates user feedback to compute success rates (e.g., percentages derived from vote tallies) and timestamps for entry age, enabling rudimentary quality filtering without algorithmic intervention. The absence of backend automation—such as credential validation scripts or for freshness—keeps computational demands low, relying instead on aggregate user votes to prioritize functional s. Integration demands no bespoke client-side applications; users manually copy-paste credentials into target site forms or employ optional third-party browser extensions and userscripts that query the BugMeNot endpoint to inject suggestions directly into fields. To sustain operations amid variable loads, the service hosts on providers like NearlyFreeSpeech.NET, which implements a usage-based billing model and distributed infrastructure to accommodate traffic surges without centralized failure points, thereby bolstering uptime through economic scalability rather than redundant servers. This austere architecture—centered on unadorned , query, and curation—facilitates resilience against overloads or targeted disruptions by eschewing resource-intensive features.

History

Founding and Initial Launch (2003)

BugMeNot was founded in August by an anonymous Australian developer, motivated by frustration with the proliferation of mandatory registrations that required users to create disposable accounts and fake profiles for occasional content access, such as news articles or software drivers. The service provided a community-driven database where users could submit and retrieve shared credentials to circumvent these barriers, highlighting the perceived absurdity of such requirements for purposes. Initially developed as a rudimentary weekend project, it prioritized unrestricted access over commercial interests, operating without advertisements or subscription models. The bugmenot.com domain was registered on , 2003, marking the formal launch of the site. Hosted on conventional providers like , the platform relied on simple web infrastructure to support user contributions of credentials for high-profile sites, including major newspapers and media outlets. Early adoption occurred rapidly via organic word-of-mouth on forums and initial coverage in tech publications, transforming the basic tool into a widely recognized resource for bypassing registration walls. By late 2003, it had begun accumulating a substantial collection of shared logins, reflecting user demand for streamlined information access without commitments.

Temporary Shutdown and Hosting Migration (2004)

In August 2004, approximately one year after its launch, BugMeNot faced a temporary shutdown when its hosting provider, , suspended the site's service due to repeated server crashes attributed to a surge in user traffic. 's spokesman explicitly denied claims of external pressure from media companies or legal actions such as DMCA notices, emphasizing that the disruption stemmed solely from the site's inability to handle the increased load on shared hosting resources. This technical failure underscored the operational challenges of rapid popularity growth without proportional infrastructure scaling, rather than any coordinated opposition from content providers. The site's operators responded promptly by migrating to NearlyFreeSpeech.NET, a Texas-based hosting service known for its commitment to free speech principles and willingness to support controversial or high-traffic sites that other providers might reject. NearlyFreeSpeech.NET's model, which prioritizes minimal content restrictions and robust handling of demanding workloads, allowed BugMeNot to resume operations within days of the outage. Representatives from the new host affirmed their stance as free speech advocates, distinguishing their operations from associations with and focusing instead on technical reliability for legitimate user-driven services. This episode exposed the fragility of early shared hosting for burgeoning web services but also illustrated BugMeNot's adaptability, as the core functionality and user-contributed database remained intact post-migration, preserving its momentum without long-term disruption. The transition reinforced the site's resilience against scalability hurdles, enabling continued growth under a more tolerant and capable infrastructure.

Ongoing Operations and Adaptations (2005–Present)

In August 2005, intensified efforts to counter BugMeNot by implementing detection mechanisms that invalidated shared logins, prompting users to rapidly submit refreshed credentials to maintain access. This escalation highlighted ongoing tensions between content providers and the service's community, yet BugMeNot persisted through volunteer-driven updates to its login database without requiring structural overhauls. The service has maintained uninterrupted operations since its 2004 hosting migration, with no reported permanent shutdowns and consistent uptime into the . As of September 2025, BugMeNot continues to attract approximately 150,000 monthly organic search visits, demonstrating sustained user despite rumors of occasional downtime that have not materialized into prolonged disruptions. To adapt to evolving web measures, including the widespread adoption of CAPTCHAs and enhanced , BugMeNot relies on features such as user voting on login success rates, which helps prioritize effective credentials—evident in site entries displaying vote-based efficacy percentages. This mechanism also filters spam and obsolete submissions, ensuring the database remains functional for sites still vulnerable to shared login circumvention, though efficacy diminishes against advanced protections like .

Features and User Practices

Login Sharing Process

Users access shared login credentials through the BugMeNot website by entering the target site's domain or URL into a simple search form on the homepage, which queries a community-maintained database of usernames and passwords. The service displays available credentials, typically multiple options per site, ranked by user-submitted votes indicating their current working status, with higher-voted entries prioritized for reliability. This voting mechanism relies on community feedback to filter out expired or invalid logins, enabling users to select and apply the most viable option directly on the original site's login page. To contribute new credentials, users who encounter no suitable logins or wish to update outdated ones must first register a free account on the target website—limited to sites requiring only non-commercial, mandatory free registration such as archives or content paywalls—then submit the username and password via BugMeNot's dedicated contribution form, which prompts verification to prevent abuse. This process incentivizes participation by distributing the effort of account creation across users, reducing individual exposure to spam or while ensuring a steady supply of functional logins for popular domains. Browser extensions enhance usability by automating retrieval and integration; for instance, the DontBugMe Chrome extension detects login pages and fetches BugMeNot credentials with a single click, while the Better BugMeNot add-on facilitates copying, auto-submission, and failure reporting directly from the toolbar. These tools minimize manual steps, such as navigating to bugmenot.com or manually entering details, thereby lowering barriers to both retrieval and contribution, and fostering repeated without requiring personal account creation on BugMeNot itself.

Opt-Out and Site Blacklisting

BugMeNot provides website owners with a voluntary opt-out mechanism to request blacklisting of their domain from the shared login database, allowing them to prevent the listing of credentials for their site. Site administrators initiate this by submitting a removal request through an online form on the service's dedicated removal page, which directs to a Wufoo-hosted interface for collecting necessary details such as the domain URL. This process positions blacklisting as a user-empowered accommodation rather than a default enforcement, requiring proactive effort from site operators without automated domain scanning or mandatory compliance. Approvals for blacklisting are typically granted for sites meeting defined criteria, including pay-per-view models where users pay for access, community platforms reliant on , or services vulnerable to fraud, theft, or abuse through shared accounts. The straightforward email or form-based submission depends on the BugMeNot operator's review and initiative, but adoption remains low, as evidenced by the persistence of credentials for thousands of major domains since the service's inception in 2003, suggesting many providers forgo requests to avoid alienating potential traffic sources. This contrasts with more aggressive site defenses, such as IP-based bans or escalations, which shared login users often evade via proxies, VPNs, or disposable accounts, revealing the inherent limits of technical barriers against determined circumvention. Sites prioritizing visitor volume over rigid terms-of-service enforcement thus exhibit tolerance, with serving as an optional deterrent rather than a comprehensive solution to account sharing.

Community-Driven Contributions and Moderation

BugMeNot sustains its database through voluntary user submissions, where individuals provide usernames and passwords for specific websites via a dedicated form requiring only the site , credentials, and optional notes. This decentralized approach enables coverage of over 49,000 domains without proprietary or paid moderation. Quality control relies on a voting mechanism, allowing users to report login efficacy by selecting "Yes" or "No" after testing . Entries aggregate these inputs to display success rates, vote counts, and age; for example, a credential for software.ibm.com reflects a 92% success rate from 1,352 votes, while another for examples.com indicates 60% from 149 votes. High-vote, high-success accounts rise in utility, organically filtering expired, revoked, or site-blocked logins as negative votes accumulate and reduce visibility. Spam and malicious entries, including fabricated credentials or those for unauthorized paid access, face collective scrutiny rather than staff review, with terms explicitly barring such submissions and low success ratings diminishing their prominence. This user-driven validation, absent formal hierarchies, attracts contributions from technically adept participants motivated by aversion to registration-induced privacy risks, such as spam exposure from disposable email demands and data harvesting.

Reception and Controversies

User Advocacy and Benefits

Users for BugMeNot as a practical to mandatory registrations that compel users to surrender , such as addresses, often leading to unwanted spam or exposure. By sharing pre-existing credentials, the service enables access to content without the need for individual account creation, thereby safeguarding user privacy from corporate practices that prioritize over open information access. The primary benefits include significant time savings for casual readers encountering registration walls on news sites, forums, or databases, where one-time viewing does not justify the signup process. Empirical user experiences demonstrate reduced friction in obtaining articles or resources that would otherwise require disposable services or repeated form-filling, fostering broader dissemination of information without financial or personal barriers. For instance, shared logins have proven effective for bypassing barriers on sites hosting free but gated content, allowing quick verification of facts or casual browsing. Community endorsements, spanning over two decades since the service's 2003 inception, underscore its enduring utility amid persistent registration demands. Discussions on platforms like frequently praise BugMeNot for enabling throwaway access to otherwise restricted materials, with users describing it as "invaluable" for avoiding account proliferation and maintaining in an era of pervasive tracking. This support reflects a broader pushback against media gatekeeping, where shared credentials democratize entry to repositories without obligating users to ongoing subscriptions or data-sharing agreements.

Criticisms from Content Providers

Content providers, particularly online newspapers requiring free registration for access, have objected to BugMeNot on the grounds that it facilitates violations of their (TOS), which typically prohibit sharing login credentials and treat accounts as non-transferable. By enabling multiple users to access content via a single shared account, the service circumvents registration processes designed to collect user demographics for and subscriptions. In August 2005, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution (AJC) escalated its opposition by modifying its registration form to require a first name in addition to email and password, rendering BugMeNot-shared logins ineffective as the additional field could not be consistently bypassed. AJC officials framed this as a necessary measure to prevent "freeloading" and ensure compliance with their established registration system, which had been in place since April 2004 to gather verifiable user data. The change aimed to maintain data integrity, as shared accounts could introduce "dirty data" from fabricated entries, potentially skewing analytics on unique visitors and user profiles used for ad sales. Media outlets have argued that such services artificially distort metrics by allowing untracked access, which undermines revenue models dependent on accurate user tracking and personalized targeting rather than anonymous or aggregated views. However, of significant financial harm remains limited; most targeted sites offer content freely after one-time registration, primarily for rather than direct paywalls, suggesting minimal direct revenue loss from bypassed registrations. BugMeNot's policy of excluding paid subscription sites further confines its impact to non-monetized access barriers. Use of typically constitutes a violation of individual websites' (TOS), which prohibit account sharing, rather than a criminal offense under laws such as the (CFAA). Federal courts, including rulings from the Ninth Circuit and a district court as of 2019–2020, have consistently held that mere TOS breaches do not equate to unauthorized access or hacking under the CFAA, distinguishing them from actions involving deception or technical circumvention. No documented lawsuits have targeted BugMeNot operators or individual users for core operations, unlike enforcement against shared paid subscriptions (e.g., account sharing prosecutions in the UK since 2019, driven by revenue loss from premium services). This disparity stems from BugMeNot's focus on free-registration sites, where providers face minimal direct financial harm and thus low incentives for costly litigation. Ethically, proponents frame shared logins as a legitimate counter to coercive registration practices that compel disclosure of for public or nominally free content, aligning with user over privacy-invasive barriers. Critics, including site operators, contend it undermines property rights in and enables freeloading, potentially eroding incentives for content creation, though shows rare aggressive enforcement beyond automated blocks. The service's mechanism for sites further tempers claims of systemic harm, as affected providers can request delisting without judicial intervention. Security concerns arise from dissemination, which could expose credentials to misuse if users apply shared logins to non-throwaway accounts, heightening risks of unauthorized activity attribution or broader breaches via reuse. However, BugMeNot emphasizes disposable credentials created solely for sharing, and community moderation removes flagged invalid or compromised entries, limiting verified abuse incidents. General studies on credential sharing note elevated vulnerabilities like account takeover, but BugMeNot's model—lacking persistent storage of active sessions—avoids many pitfalls of centralized sharing platforms. Users mitigate risks by avoiding sensitive sites and employing unique, low-value , rendering large-scale exploits uncommon in practice.

Impact and Current Status

Influence on Online Access Practices

BugMeNot, launched in November 2003, introduced crowdsourced sharing as a method to mandatory registrations, fundamentally altering user approaches to accessing gated content by enabling anonymous entry without personal data submission. This innovation empowered users to avoid the tedium and risks of repeated registrations, fostering a broader cultural shift toward demanding frictionless web experiences and reducing tolerance for compulsory account creation solely for ad targeting or metrics. The service's popularity pressured content providers, as evidenced by efforts from outlets like in 2005 to systematically invalidate shared credentials, highlighting how BugMeNot's circumvention tactics correlated with industry reevaluations of registration walls. Over time, this user-driven resistance contributed to observable trends where numerous sites adopted optional logins or guest access modes to curb credential abuse and sustain traffic, diminishing the prevalence of hard registration barriers that dominated early 2000s . By underscoring the dispensability of user data for basic content delivery, BugMeNot amplified pre-GDPR critiques of excessive tracking, as shared logins minimized exposure to profiling while exposing how registrations often served over utility. Its endurance against shutdown attempts—such as a hosting disruption resolved by relocating to NearlyFreeSpeech.net, a provider emphasizing minimal content restrictions—exemplified resilience amid pressures from established media, influencing hosting choices for similar anti-censorship utilities. BugMeNot persists in a digital landscape increasingly dominated by hard paywalls on major news outlets, such as , where metered models limit free articles before requiring payment, yet the service targets residual soft barriers like mandatory email registrations without financial commitment. Over two-thirds of leading newspapers in the and now employ some form of , up from prior years, reflecting publishers' shift toward subscription revenue amid declining ad models. However, BugMeNot's utility endures for sites retaining free-but-gated access, complementing tools like archive.is for archived content or VPNs for geo-restrictions, though these lack the crowdsourced database's scale for one-time verifications. As of October 2025, bugmenot.com remains fully operational, enabling users to search and submit shared credentials without evidence of acquisition, pivots to monetization, or closure despite occasional past traffic-related disruptions. The site's independent, ad-free structure has avoided corporate integration, sustaining its role for sporadic access needs rather than daily reliance. The proliferation of single sign-on (SSO) options, such as login, has diminished BugMeNot's relevance for platforms integrating social authentication, as these streamline entry and boost conversion rates by reducing —studies indicate social logins now preferred by up to 34% of users for efficiency. Nonetheless, it retains niche value for privacy-conscious individuals wary of centralized identity providers, which expose data across ecosystems upon breach, favoring decentralized, throwaway credentials over tracked profiles. Competitors like Password-Login.com or freeaccount.biz offer similar sharing but often lack BugMeNot's established community moderation and breadth.

References

  1. https://www.crunchbase.com/person/guy-king
  2. https://bugmenot.com/
  3. https://www.sfgate.com/technology/article/www-bugmenot-com-3247658.php
  4. https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2005/stepping-up-the-battle-against-bugmenot/
  5. https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2007/jan/08/bugmenot-gets-you-in-without-a-login-account/
  6. https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bugmenot-com-is-it-legal-or-ethical/256966
  7. https://www.quora.com/What-is-BugMeNot
  8. https://bugmenot.com/view/history.com
  9. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1808.00840
  10. https://bugmenot.com/submit.php
  11. https://bugmenot.com/view/password-login.com
  12. https://greasyfork.org/en/scripts/23166-bugmenot
  13. https://www.cnet.com/culture/bugmenot-pesters-onward/
  14. https://www.smh.com.au/technology/revealed-the-brains-behind-bugmenot-20071009-gdraij.html
  15. https://www.virusbulletin.com/virusbulletin/2008/07/advertising-database-poisoning
  16. https://www.wmtips.com/tools/info/bugmenot.com
  17. https://www.wired.com/2004/08/bugmenot-gets-booted-restored/
  18. https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/1135777.1135829
  19. https://digitaldeliverance.com/2004/08/24/bugmenot-shutdown-due-to-high-traffic-not-threats-former-host/
  20. https://boingboing.net/2004/08/23/bugmenots-new-host-w.html
  21. https://www.techdirt.com/2005/08/19/why-stop-bugmenot/
  22. https://www.semrush.com/website/bugmenot.com/overview/
  23. https://appuals.com/what-is-bugmenot-and-how-to-use-it/
  24. https://www.theinternetpatrol.com/bugmenot-provides-free-passwords-to-sites-requiring-registration-to-read-free-content/
  25. https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/dontbugme/mknlnngolpglmlcadgdmlaokbfgppmma?hl=en-US
  26. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/better-bugmenot/
  27. https://github.com/vantezzen/dontbugme
  28. https://bugmenot.com/removal.php
  29. https://bugmenot.com/view/website.com
  30. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11716709
  31. https://www.ndss-symposium.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/23008-paper.pdf
  32. https://bugmenot.com/view/software.ibm.com
  33. https://bugmenot.com/view/examples.com
  34. https://bugmenot.com/terms.php
  35. https://tpenguinltg.wordpress.com/2013/07/02/bugmenot/
  36. http://www.holovaty.com/writing/281/
  37. https://lifehacker.com/bugmenot-bypass-web-site-registration-31809
  38. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/f5owib/what_is_a_useful_app_or_website_that_not_enough/
  39. https://www.reddit.com/r/InternetIsBeautiful/comments/z7kq0/bugmenotcom_hosts_public_usernamespasswords_of/
  40. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/16ijiee/what_is_the_underrated_website_youve_visited_that/
  41. https://www.techdirt.com/2005/12/01/using-bugmenot-probably-not-a-dmca-violation/
  42. https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/movement-to-end-registration-required/
  43. https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/ninth-circuit/violation-of-a-websites-terms-of-service-is-not-criminal/
  44. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/04/federal-judge-rules-it-not-crime-violate-websites-terms-service
  45. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/03/court-violating-a-sites-terms-of-service-isnt-criminal-hacking/
  46. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35670075
  47. https://www.saashub.com/compare-bugmenot-vs-indieauth
  48. https://identitymanagementinstitute.org/the-risks-of-password-and-account-sharing/
  49. https://www.quora.com/How-harmful-can-it-be-using-a-login-sharing-site-like-bugmenot-com
  50. https://jbonneau.com/doc/BP10-WEIS-password_thicket.pdf
  51. https://www.wired.com/2004/07/we-dont-need-no-stinkin-login/
  52. https://blog.codinghorror.com/removing-the-login-barrier/
  53. https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/news/newspaper-paywalls-slowly-increasing-online-news-still-mostly-free
  54. https://www.evolok.com/blog/5-proven-paywall-models-that-drive-digital-subscription-growth-for-publishers
  55. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/04/paywall-problems-media-trust-democracy/678032/
  56. https://www.ignitesocialmedia.com/twitter-marketing/social-login-preference-google/
  57. https://www.okta.com/sites/default/files/2023-06/GoingDeepwithSocialLogin-Whitepaper-20230601-Final.pdf
  58. https://www.lumiun.com/blog/en/login-with-social-networks-what-are-the-risks-of-using-your-google-or-facebook-account-on-other-websites/
  59. https://ithy.com/article/bugmenot-alternatives-high-success-06n8kdyl
  60. https://www.semrush.com/website/bugmenot.com/competitors/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.