3 ms·

One must wonder why an organization supposedly focused on trust would have mislead you like this.

tivert 8y ago
> One must wonder why an organization supposedly focused on trust would have mislead you like this. Mislead how? By not offering permalinks? He didn't outline any issues with the information in the reports, just difficulties with accessing them.
- darkpuma 8y ago
  > "Mislead how? By not offering permalinks?" By failing to make it clear to him that their privacy invading browser extension is the only way to view their data. Why did they fail to effectively communicate this to him?
  - tivert 8y ago
    > their privacy invading browser extension You know what other add-on can "Access your data for all websites"? uBlock Origin: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/ublock-origin/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/ublock-origin... Now, back to Newsguard. According to Mozilla [1], that permission is needed for an add-on to read page content. The Newsguard add-on has screenshots that show it popping up alerts for the RT Facebook page (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/newsguard/#&gid=1&pid=3 https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/newsguard/#&g...) and some other post in a Facebook news feed (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/newsguard/#&gid=1&pid=4 https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/newsguard/#&g...). I don't see how the extension could provide that functionality without the permission, so giving it access to "all data for all websites" seems reasonable to me. Insufficient evidence has been presented to make the case that the extension is "privacy invading." Do you have more to support your conclusion, or did you just jump to it? [1] https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/permission-request-messages-firefox-extensions https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/permission-request-mess...
    - darkpuma 8y ago
      Frankly I trust gorhill more than I trust whoever is behind any other random extension I never heard of before today. There is this little thing called "reputation". Why do they make you use their extension, instead of simply letting you enter URLs on their website? If I'm curious what they think of any given website, why must I install their extension to find out? The only reason I can think of to not facilitate that sort of workflow is to coerce the curious into installing the extension, which I consider to be nefarious until proven otherwise.
      - tivert 8y ago
        > Frankly I trust gorhill more than I trust whoever is behind any other random extension I never heard of before today. There is this little thing called "reputation". That's such a strange attitude. Yes, reputation matters, but there was a time when gorhill was unknown and had none. As far as I can tell, you're just ignorant of this extension, and assuming it's untrustworthy because of your ignorance of its trustworthiness (and likely some preexisting bias). > Why do they make you use their extension, instead of simply letting you enter URLs on their website? Isn't it blindingly obvious? They want to put user-friendly reputation-indicators on the page, without making their users go though a lot of extra hassle. This is a fairly common use case services that provide reputation ratings (e.g. https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/fakespot-analyze-fake-ama/nakplnnackehceedgkgkokbgbmfghain https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/fakespot-analyze-f... for another example). If I had to guess, the main audience for this isn't people with good media literacy skills, it's people who tend to gullibly believe sketchy websites (and who have friends or relatives with good media literacy skills who want to help them).
        gruez 8y ago
        >That's such a strange attitude. Yes, reputation matters, but there was a time when gorhill was unknown and had none. And in that case, I wouldn't have installed it. It's the same reason I install ublock over the dozens of other adblockers on AMO or chrome store. >As far as I can tell, you're just ignorant of this extension, and assuming it's untrustworthy because of your ignorance of its trustworthiness (and likely some preexisting bias). For me not necessarily "ignorance", it's a combination of: a) brand new website (to me); and b) immediate prompt for additional permissions (via an extension install). It's the same reason I wouldn't for example, lend $50 to some stranger who walked up to me, even if he was someone "trustworthy" (eg. King of Liechtenstein). >Isn't it blindingly obvious? They want to put user-friendly reputation-indicators on the page, without making their users go though a lot of extra hassle. This is a fairly common use case services that provide reputation ratings (e.g. https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/fakespot-analyze-f.. https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/fakespot-analyze-f.... for another example). >If I had to guess, the main audience for this isn't people with good media literacy skills, it's people who tend to gullibly believe sketchy websites (and who have friends or relatives with good media literacy skills who want to help them). Sure, an extension is more user friendly, but make it mandatory when a web page would do fine? This is the "install our app" nag taken to the next level and reeks of developers forcing "what's best" upon users.

> One must wonder why an organization supposedly focused on trust would have mislead you like this. Mislead how? By not offering permalinks? He didn't outline any issues with the information in the reports, just difficulties with accessing them.

darkpuma 8y ago
> "Mislead how? By not offering permalinks?" By failing to make it clear to him that their privacy invading browser extension is the only way to view their data. Why did they fail to effectively communicate this to him?
- tivert 8y ago
  > their privacy invading browser extension You know what other add-on can "Access your data for all websites"? uBlock Origin: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/ublock-origin/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/ublock-origin... Now, back to Newsguard. According to Mozilla [1], that permission is needed for an add-on to read page content. The Newsguard add-on has screenshots that show it popping up alerts for the RT Facebook page (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/newsguard/#&gid=1&pid=3 https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/newsguard/#&g...) and some other post in a Facebook news feed (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/newsguard/#&gid=1&pid=4 https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/newsguard/#&g...). I don't see how the extension could provide that functionality without the permission, so giving it access to "all data for all websites" seems reasonable to me. Insufficient evidence has been presented to make the case that the extension is "privacy invading." Do you have more to support your conclusion, or did you just jump to it? [1] https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/permission-request-messages-firefox-extensions https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/permission-request-mess...
  - darkpuma 8y ago
    Frankly I trust gorhill more than I trust whoever is behind any other random extension I never heard of before today. There is this little thing called "reputation". Why do they make you use their extension, instead of simply letting you enter URLs on their website? If I'm curious what they think of any given website, why must I install their extension to find out? The only reason I can think of to not facilitate that sort of workflow is to coerce the curious into installing the extension, which I consider to be nefarious until proven otherwise.
    - tivert 8y ago
      > Frankly I trust gorhill more than I trust whoever is behind any other random extension I never heard of before today. There is this little thing called "reputation". That's such a strange attitude. Yes, reputation matters, but there was a time when gorhill was unknown and had none. As far as I can tell, you're just ignorant of this extension, and assuming it's untrustworthy because of your ignorance of its trustworthiness (and likely some preexisting bias). > Why do they make you use their extension, instead of simply letting you enter URLs on their website? Isn't it blindingly obvious? They want to put user-friendly reputation-indicators on the page, without making their users go though a lot of extra hassle. This is a fairly common use case services that provide reputation ratings (e.g. https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/fakespot-analyze-fake-ama/nakplnnackehceedgkgkokbgbmfghain https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/fakespot-analyze-f... for another example). If I had to guess, the main audience for this isn't people with good media literacy skills, it's people who tend to gullibly believe sketchy websites (and who have friends or relatives with good media literacy skills who want to help them).
      - gruez 8y ago
        >That's such a strange attitude. Yes, reputation matters, but there was a time when gorhill was unknown and had none. And in that case, I wouldn't have installed it. It's the same reason I install ublock over the dozens of other adblockers on AMO or chrome store. >As far as I can tell, you're just ignorant of this extension, and assuming it's untrustworthy because of your ignorance of its trustworthiness (and likely some preexisting bias). For me not necessarily "ignorance", it's a combination of: a) brand new website (to me); and b) immediate prompt for additional permissions (via an extension install). It's the same reason I wouldn't for example, lend $50 to some stranger who walked up to me, even if he was someone "trustworthy" (eg. King of Liechtenstein). >Isn't it blindingly obvious? They want to put user-friendly reputation-indicators on the page, without making their users go though a lot of extra hassle. This is a fairly common use case services that provide reputation ratings (e.g. https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/fakespot-analyze-f.. https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/fakespot-analyze-f.... for another example). >If I had to guess, the main audience for this isn't people with good media literacy skills, it's people who tend to gullibly believe sketchy websites (and who have friends or relatives with good media literacy skills who want to help them). Sure, an extension is more user friendly, but make it mandatory when a web page would do fine? This is the "install our app" nag taken to the next level and reeks of developers forcing "what's best" upon users.