3 ms·

Half of all detected malicious extensions used the web request API to spy on users. The rule limit has already been raised to 150,000. Plenty of ad blockers w

by wffurr 7y ago

Half of all detected malicious extensions used the web request API to spy on users. The rule limit has already been raised to 150,000. Plenty of ad blockers will still work in Chrome. This thread is chock full of motivated reasoning and deliberate misinformation.

chopin 7y ago
Afaik they can do this still. This can't be the motivation.
rndgermandude 7y ago
> Half of all detected malicious extensions used the web request API to spy on users. And they can continue doing so because spying is passive and the passive (just eavesdropping, no modifications) webRequest API still will be there. >The rule limit has already been raised to 150,000. And it could be 10 billion rules. The point isn't so much the actual number, but that you cannot programmatically judge and block request anymore. >Plenty of ad blockers will still work in Chrome. Of course, those ad-blocker crippling changes aren't in the Stable yet, and even in Canary they are only "preview" and the old APIs still work. >This thread is chock full of motivated reasoning and deliberate misinformation. Yes, that's more or less what you did here.
jddj 7y ago
Can you spell out what you are implying here? Is it that the people posting in this thread are.. authors or stakeholders of malicious extensions? Do they all work for Mozilla? Are they a part of some rival industry which stands to benefit from the fall of adtech? Have they shorted GOOG? Surely it would be strange to class arguments from users who want to continue to block ads in their browsers the same, effective way that they have been for years as motivated reasoning. What sinister motivation am I missing?
- wffurr 7y ago
  For whatever reason they all seem determined to put Google in the worst possible light and ignore any arguments to the contrary. I can't speak to the motivation other than "hate Google".
  - jddj 7y ago
    If you consider your own reasons (which only you are privy to) for supporting Google's actions in this case, you might find that you're stretching to meet a narrative. And sure, they might be too, but we can't really claim that fairly without peeking inside their minds. All we really know is that they are annoyed that Google is neutering an extension which they like to use, which makes enough sense that speculation on their motivations isn't really justified.

by wffurr 7y ago

chopin 7y ago

Afaik they can do this still. This can't be the motivation.

rndgermandude 7y ago

> Half of all detected malicious extensions used the web request API to spy on users. And they can continue doing so because spying is passive and the passive (just eavesdropping, no modifications) webRequest API still will be there. >The rule limit has already been raised to 150,000. And it could be 10 billion rules. The point isn't so much the actual number, but that you cannot programmatically judge and block request anymore. >Plenty of ad blockers will still work in Chrome. Of course, those ad-blocker crippling changes aren't in the Stable yet, and even in Canary they are only "preview" and the old APIs still work. >This thread is chock full of motivated reasoning and deliberate misinformation. Yes, that's more or less what you did here.

jddj 7y ago

Can you spell out what you are implying here? Is it that the people posting in this thread are.. authors or stakeholders of malicious extensions? Do they all work for Mozilla? Are they a part of some rival industry which stands to benefit from the fall of adtech? Have they shorted GOOG? Surely it would be strange to class arguments from users who want to continue to block ads in their browsers the same, effective way that they have been for years as motivated reasoning. What sinister motivation am I missing?

wffurr 7y ago
For whatever reason they all seem determined to put Google in the worst possible light and ignore any arguments to the contrary. I can't speak to the motivation other than "hate Google".
- jddj 7y ago
  If you consider your own reasons (which only you are privy to) for supporting Google's actions in this case, you might find that you're stretching to meet a narrative. And sure, they might be too, but we can't really claim that fairly without peeking inside their minds. All we really know is that they are annoyed that Google is neutering an extension which they like to use, which makes enough sense that speculation on their motivations isn't really justified.