11 ms·
It is, and with Google in a position of owning much of what happens online, it's also Google acting unilaterally in ways that multiple actors might not. Both s
by DanielBMarkham 9y ago
It is, and with Google in a position of owning much of what happens online, it's also Google acting unilaterally in ways that multiple actors might not.
Both statements are true: It's a good thing. It's not right to have one company with so much power
No evil Google required.
- JoshTriplett 9y agoThere are plenty of cases where you might reasonably question how much control they have. But this is a mechanism to protect access controls to your Google account, almost the definition of something first-party that they should gate very carefully.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- pdkl95 9y ago> you might reasonably question how much control they have "Доверяй, но проверяй" (trust, but verify) It's very important to always question decisions made from a position of power; vigilance is the price of freedom. Questioning does not necessarily mean disapproval. Everyone concerned about the future of the internet should be questioning Google's motives and intentions every time they unilaterally exercise their power to judge which apps are "acceptable". In this case, it shouldn't take long to find the answers to that question: Google should have implemented this kind of dismissible warning a long time ago. Hiding the "continue" option behind the possibly-misleading "Advanced" link is a minor problem, but some sort of warning is obviously necessary. (I'm actually impressed they used a type-this-word check instead of yet another ignorable "go away" button.)