3 ms·

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 "reputa

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.
  - tivert 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. Don't get me wrong, I totally agree and I haven't installed Newsguard and don't plan to. The other guy really seems to want to jump to the conclusion that the extension is malicious (e.g. he characterized it as "privacy invading"), which I think is unwarranted (and frankly a little conspiratorial, given that so little supporting evidence has been given). Having researched it, it doesn't look too bad. Definitely better than trash like Media Bias/Fact Check. https://www.wired.com/story/newsguard-extension-fake-news-trust-score/ https://www.wired.com/story/newsguard-extension-fake-news-tr... > 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. Yeah, I agree it's a questionable design decision.
- darkpuma 8y ago
  > 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. That explains why they offer the extension. That does not explain why they make the extension the only option. It should be possible for me to evaluate their ratings without installing their extension, but for some reason they haven't made that possible. (If you think trust and/or erroring on the side of safety is a strange attitude, I think you a strange person. I don't need to prove this extension is nefarious; they need to prove to me they aren't.)
  - tivert 8y ago
    > That explains why they offer the extension. That does not explain why they make the extension the only option. It should be possible for me to evaluate their ratings without installing their extension, but for some reason they haven't made that possible. Why don't you ask them about their reasons, then, rather than just speculating and casting doubt that you have little basis for?

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.
- tivert 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. Don't get me wrong, I totally agree and I haven't installed Newsguard and don't plan to. The other guy really seems to want to jump to the conclusion that the extension is malicious (e.g. he characterized it as "privacy invading"), which I think is unwarranted (and frankly a little conspiratorial, given that so little supporting evidence has been given). Having researched it, it doesn't look too bad. Definitely better than trash like Media Bias/Fact Check. https://www.wired.com/story/newsguard-extension-fake-news-trust-score/ https://www.wired.com/story/newsguard-extension-fake-news-tr... > 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. Yeah, I agree it's a questionable design decision.
darkpuma 8y ago
> 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. That explains why they offer the extension. That does not explain why they make the extension the only option. It should be possible for me to evaluate their ratings without installing their extension, but for some reason they haven't made that possible. (If you think trust and/or erroring on the side of safety is a strange attitude, I think you a strange person. I don't need to prove this extension is nefarious; they need to prove to me they aren't.)
- tivert 8y ago
  > That explains why they offer the extension. That does not explain why they make the extension the only option. It should be possible for me to evaluate their ratings without installing their extension, but for some reason they haven't made that possible. Why don't you ask them about their reasons, then, rather than just speculating and casting doubt that you have little basis for?