3 ms·
Yeah, this is the issue. They're not going to catch every dirty thing extensions (perhaps unwittingly) do. If they are able to detect one or more problems with
by bostonpete 6y ago
Yeah, this is the issue. They're not going to catch every dirty thing extensions (perhaps unwittingly) do. If they are able to detect one or more problems with an extension, there's a good chance that there are other problems that were undetected. Forcing extension authors to go back and think about what they could be doing better rather than just telling them the minimal set of changes that are needed seems like it can only result in more well-behaved extensions across the board.
- thayne 6y agoThere should at least be some appeals process that involves a human then. In this case they fixed legitimate cases where they had too many permissions (including removing some functionality), and were still rejected. What if the reason they were flagged was because of a legitimate usage of a permission that the automated (or manual) system wasn't aware of? At the very least there should be a way for a flagged extension author to go through a process where they explain why they need each permission they request, and if that is they are still rejected, told why their explanation wasn't good enough. This is especially important given google's market power in the browser industry. What if the extension is from Google's competitor? Google could ban the extension without a legitimate reason to hurt their competition.