4 ms·

It's pretty ridiculous that Chrome has a whitelist. This should be enough of a red flag something isn't right.

by plasma 8y ago

setquk 8y ago
Yes this worries me. Especially with the market share. Surely a large web gatekeeper like Chrome would be in violation of anti trust regulation?
- jrockway 8y ago
  What's your legal theory behind an antitrust violation? If it were the case, why wouldn't we have already been down this road with SSL certificates? If I want to open the jrockway CA with a policy of "I will literally sign any CSR with no verification", I can't, because no major browser vendor will add me to their certificate whitelists. That's not an antitrust violation.
  - setquk 8y ago
    The legal basis is that google operate the largest video delivery site. If they fail to whitelist smaller organisations then they are operating anti competitively. The CA situation is a different model. To be honest the whole trustworthy CA thing is a joke as we’ve found out recently. The model is broken. Look at Symantec.
- retox 8y ago
  People are getting e-irate at so called "net neutrality" but don't care when corps force their opinions and business decisions on users, or even block them entirely from working with their competitors. (See goog blocking YouTube on Amazon devices, Netflix refusing to offer the streams non-blessed browsers, etc).
kodablah 8y ago
How about blacklists like safe browsing lists or lists of pages to enable ad blocking on?
- kuschku 8y ago
  Ad blocking should also be enabled on all pages. The only reason to ever discriminate between pages is when one has actually committed a crime (e.g. the safe browsing lists) For anything else my own little blog should be the same as Google’s largest sites.
  - kodablah 8y ago
    > Ad blocking should also be enabled on all pages. But it's not enabled on all pages in Chrome unless you install an extension. By default, Chrome enables built-in ad blocking on specific set of sites that they consider intrusive. > The only reason to ever discriminate between pages is when one has actually committed a crime (e.g. the safe browsing lists) Careful, I don't think you're gonna get to see the criminal complaint for all on the safe browsing list. Or you you mean committed a crime in Google's eyes?

It's pretty ridiculous that Chrome has a whitelist. This should be enough of a red flag something isn't right.

by plasma 8y ago

It's pretty ridiculous that Chrome has a whitelist. This should be enough of a red flag something isn't right.

Yes this worries me. Especially with the market share. Surely a large web gatekeeper like Chrome would be in violation of anti trust regulation?

jrockway 8y ago
What's your legal theory behind an antitrust violation? If it were the case, why wouldn't we have already been down this road with SSL certificates? If I want to open the jrockway CA with a policy of "I will literally sign any CSR with no verification", I can't, because no major browser vendor will add me to their certificate whitelists. That's not an antitrust violation.
- setquk 8y ago
  The legal basis is that google operate the largest video delivery site. If they fail to whitelist smaller organisations then they are operating anti competitively. The CA situation is a different model. To be honest the whole trustworthy CA thing is a joke as we’ve found out recently. The model is broken. Look at Symantec.
retox 8y ago
People are getting e-irate at so called "net neutrality" but don't care when corps force their opinions and business decisions on users, or even block them entirely from working with their competitors. (See goog blocking YouTube on Amazon devices, Netflix refusing to offer the streams non-blessed browsers, etc).

kodablah 8y ago

How about blacklists like safe browsing lists or lists of pages to enable ad blocking on?

kuschku 8y ago
Ad blocking should also be enabled on all pages. The only reason to ever discriminate between pages is when one has actually committed a crime (e.g. the safe browsing lists) For anything else my own little blog should be the same as Google’s largest sites.
- kodablah 8y ago
  > Ad blocking should also be enabled on all pages. But it's not enabled on all pages in Chrome unless you install an extension. By default, Chrome enables built-in ad blocking on specific set of sites that they consider intrusive. > The only reason to ever discriminate between pages is when one has actually committed a crime (e.g. the safe browsing lists) Careful, I don't think you're gonna get to see the criminal complaint for all on the safe browsing list. Or you you mean committed a crime in Google's eyes?