You click, you scroll, then everything stalls. A puzzle appears. A timer ticks. Suddenly, you’re proving you exist online.
Across major news sites and shopping pages, silent gatekeepers now judge how you move, what you block, and where you connect from. Their goal is simple: stop automated scraping and suspicious traffic before it drains content, crashes servers, or feeds unlicensed AI models. Your challenge is simpler: get back to reading without a fight.
Why you get stopped at the door
Websites increasingly run behavioural checks in the background. They flag patterns that look machine-like: dozens of rapid clicks, missing JavaScript, blocked cookies, copycat requests across many pages, or access from IP addresses tied to proxies and data centres. Even the size of your browser window and the pace of your scroll can trip alarms.
Human readers can still get caught in the net. VPNs and aggressive privacy settings mask signals that sites use to tell people from bots. Accessibility tools and text-only browsers can also look unusual to automated risk models. When that happens, you meet a verification screen before the page loads.
People do get mislabelled as bots. The fastest route back is to pass the challenge or contact support with basic details of the block.
Publishers fight back against data scraping
Media groups have tightened rules to defend their journalism and audience data from automated collection. Contracts and technical controls now work together: terms of service restrict automated access, while bot detectors, rate limits and JavaScript challenges enforce those rules in real time.
One high-profile example is the policy used by News Group Newspapers, which bars automated access and text or data mining of its content, including for AI, machine learning or large language models. The company directs businesses seeking commercial use to request permission via [email protected]. If a genuine reader gets blocked, the advice is to contact customer support at [email protected].
AI and data-mining operators face rising walls: contractual bans, technical roadblocks and explicit opt-outs designed to stop unlicensed harvesting.
This shift reflects a wider industry mood. As generative AI tools ingest more web content, publishers want clarity on licensing, attribution and value. Legal frameworks differ by country, but many sites increasingly rely on contract terms and access controls to assert their rights and protect infrastructure.
False positives are a painful side effect
Tighter thresholds bring more friction for ordinary readers. A burst of tab openings, an unstable mobile signal or a misconfigured browser can push you onto the wrong side of the line. Sites are under pressure to block abuse without losing loyal audiences, so they log signals that help refine their decisions: request IDs, timestamps, IP ranges and error codes. Sharing those details with support teams can speed fixes.
Seven checks you might meet and how to pass fast
- Enable JavaScript and cookies: many verification tools run inside your browser. Without them, pages can’t test normal behaviour.
- Complete a CAPTCHA: pick images, solve a simple puzzle or use an audio option. Keep attempts steady; repeated failures trigger cooldowns.
- Verify once via email or SMS: some sites send a one-time code. Use the same device and network for a smoother handover.
- Pause VPNs and proxies temporarily: privacy tools can resemble data-centre traffic. Reconnect on your regular network, then retry.
- Slow your pace: rapid-fire clicking and mass tab refreshes look automated. Move normally for a minute to let risk scores settle.
- Disable automation add-ons: scraping extensions and custom scripts leave traces. Turn them off and relaunch the browser.
- Wait out rate limits: if you made many requests, take a 10–15 minute break. Returning later often resets the block.
| Method | What it checks | Time to pass | Privacy impact | Accessibility notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CAPTCHA (image/audio) | Human pattern recognition | 10–40 seconds | Low | Audio alternatives help; can still be hard for some users |
| Email/SMS code | Control of contact channel | 30–90 seconds | Medium (contact data) | Good for screen-readers; relies on phone/email access |
| JavaScript challenge | Normal browser execution | 2–5 seconds | Low | Works silently; fails on text-only or blocked JS |
| Device attestation | Trusted device signals | Instant once set up | Medium | Smooth for most; may need modern hardware |
| Behavioural scoring | Scroll, click and timing patterns | Continuous | Low | Can misread assistive tech; report issues to support |
What to do if you’re wrongly blocked
First, pass the challenge if you can. If the page still refuses access, take a screenshot showing the error text, any reference ID and the time. Note whether you used a VPN, privacy extensions or a corporate network.
Next, contact the site’s support team. For The Sun’s readers, the assistance email is [email protected]. Keep the message brief, list the steps you tried, paste the error reference, and include the country you’re visiting from. Avoid sharing passwords or sensitive personal data.
For businesses requesting automated access or commercial reuse, the proper route is a licence. News Group Newspapers handles these via [email protected]. Licences define scope, volume, timing and attribution, and they reduce the risk of tripping security controls.
The privacy and accessibility trade-off
Defences work best when they see enough to decide quickly. That creates pressure to collect signals that privacy tools hide. Many sites now balance the two by offering multiple pathways: quick JavaScript checks for most users, accessible audio puzzles for others, and manual support for edge cases. Readers who rely on assistive technology should not get trapped by a wall of tiny images or time-limited challenges, so clear alternatives matter.
Friction protects content and servers, but it must not shut out people with disabilities or those using privacy tools in good faith.
Why this matters for you
For readers, the benefit is a cleaner site with fewer spam comments, fewer scraper-induced slowdowns and less chance of account takeover. The cost is the occasional speed bump. Keeping a mainstream browser up to date, allowing core scripts, and avoiding aggressive automation can keep you on the fast lane.
For small publishers, verification reduces bandwidth bills and shields archives from unlicensed harvesting. It also sends a signal to AI firms: pay for access, or keep out. That stance gives room to negotiate fair value and guard exclusive reporting.
Practical tips that save time
Before you open a long read, check your setup. If you use a VPN, pick a server in your country and avoid frequently abused endpoints. Allow first-party cookies on trusted news sites. If a challenge appears, solve it once and stay on the same tab; hopping across tabs can reset the test. When all else fails, write to support with the error reference and wait for confirmation.
Curious why you got flagged? Try a quick simulation: visit the same page first with JavaScript allowed, then with it disabled. Notice the difference in load time and prompts. That contrast shows how sites separate normal browsers from tools that strip scripts to harvest text at scale.
The guardrails are here to stay. Knowing how they work—and how to glide through them—puts you back in control of your time online, while publishers keep control of their work.
Great breakdown. One thing I’m still unclear on: with device attestation and behavioural scoring running continuously, what data exactly is retained long‑term vs tossed immediately? For readers using screen‑readers or text‑only modes, is there a standard appeals path beyond “contact support”? I worry that aggressive thresholds plus mislabelled assistive tech create a quiet access tax. Any published retention windows or DPIA-style notes would really help. Also, how are cooldowns calcualted—per IP, session, or request ID?