9 ms·
> The reasons for this are ridiculous and probably only pretended because ClearURLs damages Google's business model. […] > Among other things, it was claimed t
by Hendrikto 6y ago
> The reasons for this are ridiculous and probably only pretended because ClearURLs damages Google's business model. […]
> Among other things, it was claimed that the description of the addon is too detailed and thus violates the Chrome Web Store rules. The mention of all the people who helped to develop and translate ClearURLs is against Google's rules because it could "confuse" the user. Ridiculous.
> Also, Google has criticized that the description of the addon did not mention that there is a badged, an export/import function for the settings, a logging function for debugging, and a donation button. This would be "misleading".
> Last but not least, it was criticized that the "clipboardWrite" permission would not be necessary. But that's not true, and I've had a description for each permission in the Chrome Web Store Developer Dashboard for well over a year now. So the "clipboardWrite" permission is needed for writing clean links via the context menu into the clipboard.
- echelon 6y agoMore fuel for the Google antitrust / breakup fire. Google should not be allowed to develop Chrome or have any say in web standards. Every play they make favors themselves - unsemantic HTML5, AMP, crippled and removed extensions, progressive removal of the URL bar, https everywhere (no more self-hosted blogs unless you understand cert signing and automated renewal - why did the web stop being easy?), cookie standards that favor their moat, "acceptable ads" policies, ReCAPCHA, etc. etc. Here's a laundry list of things they did to YouTube to hamper other, non-Chrome browsers: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/12/the-web-now-belongs-to-google-and-that-should-worry-us-all/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/12/the-web-now-belongs-...
- jiofih 6y agoDon’t know why you are being downvoted, this is absolutely true. Handing web standards over to an advertising company has been of the most damaging things ever done to the internet.
- yurielt 6y agoIt seems as if google or is eh moles are monitoring this site because it is not the first time a reasonable anti google comments gets treated like this with no replies explaining why
- bbarnett 6y agoBear in mind, that many subconsciously are unhappy with their workplace's policies and effects on the world, but at the same time have linked their personal esteem and identity with work. By threatening their self esteem, their very identity, by validating what the know deep inside them, that they work to do evil, without wanting to, they must strongly reject/defy such claims to reassert and restore their veiled view of themselves.
- agustif 6y ago“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
- prepend 6y agoThat quote isn’t specific to capitalism and would apply to any economic system where people have salaries.
- agustif 6y agoKay, stand corrected then. Edited the first line and left only the quote.
- yurielt 6y agoEven if socia Kali am h happens then the employees pass to own the company thus they would have more of an incentive to act like this blaming this on capitalism seems like a baseless claim in this specific situation
- 6y ago
- foepys 6y agoI agree with you except for the HTTPS part. In some nations it's not unheard of for ISPs to inject ads and tracking into webpages. This also opens the door for malware. Let's Encrypt's with its certbot made it easy enough to get a cert and every major webserver supports HTTPS out of the box with good documentation.
- jeltz 6y agoThe certbot client is pretty awful (it does not cooperate well with automization) but otherwise I agree 100%. HTTPS everywhere and Letsencrypt have been huge boons to security.
- rjmunro 6y agoCan you expand "it does not cooperate well with automization", because that's not something I've ever heard before.
- jeltz 6y agoSome of its commands modify the config files so if you ever need to fix something manually you can very easily end up changing the config and breaking something. I use dehydrated instead.
- Omniusaspirer 6y agoCertbot seemed pretty easily automated to me as a guy who just set it up for the first time a few days ago on a new Arch install. The wiki is a pretty great resource if you're still having problems.
- happymellon 6y agoNot unheard of? Pretty sure Comcast at least used to do this. They are a pretty big player in a well know country that most people here would know of.
- deallocator 6y agoI don't disagree with what you're saying, but I feel HTTPS everywhere does not belong in that list. Secure by default doesn't sound evil to me, and Let's Encrypt made it easy enough to get free HTTPS certificates (and for non technical people, almost all hosting services I've seen offer it out of the box)
- varispeed 6y agoLet's Encrypt has de facto monopoly. I think we could have added HTTPS if we had dozens of projects like Let's Encrypt otherwise this is just handing over too much control to one organisation.
- madeofpalk 6y ago> Let's Encrypt has de facto monopoly. Is that even remotely true? There are alternatives to Lets Encrypt - AWS has an equivalent project where they issue free SSL certs for AWS resources.
- hhjj 6y agoIf it is for AWS resources it is not equivalent.
- solarengineer 6y agoAWS don’t owe non AWS customers free certificates, though. It is possible to host LetsEncrypt alternatives, though. The viability is another matter, though.
- pessimizer 6y agoLetsEncrypt doesn't owe anyone free certificates, either. The point is that AWS isn't an alternative unless you're spending money with AWS. Nobody is wondering whether you can get a certificate by paying someone.
- 6y ago
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- rjmunro 6y agoGoogle reject plugin saying description is too long and wordy, and doesn't cover points that it should. So either Google must be trying to block a plugin for evil business reasons or Google is trying to improve the Chrome Web Store, making it less confusing for users and easier to search. Improving the description will probably make more people install it, not less.
- dspillett 6y ago> Among other things, it was claimed that the description of the addon is too detailed ... > Also, Google has criticized that the description of the addon did not mention <list of things> ... So it was simultaneously too detailed, but needed more details.
- nybble41 6y agoIt needed different details. In the reviewer's opinion the description included irrelevant details while omitting information which would be relevant to someone trying to decide whether or not to install the addon. Which is a perfectly reasonable assessment IMHO. A small amount of "flavor text" is fine, but the main purpose of the description is to ensure that prospective users can make an informed decision. Anything else can go in the app's "about" page or on a separate website. Now if we could just get app stores to mandate useful changelogs… No, Google, "Bug fixes and performance improvements" doesn't cut it. Describe the bugs that were fixed and where and by how much the performance was improved. Justify spending the effort and risk of updating the software to the new version. There is no point in a changelog message that could be applied equally well to every release of every software product ever made.
- gertrunde 6y ago> it was claimed that the description of the addon is too detailed and thus violates the Chrome Web Store rules. This one does make me laugh more than the rest, coming from Google that names their apps in the Play store as follows: "Android Auto - Google Maps, Media & Messaging" "Files by Google: Clean up space on your phone" "Google Chrome: Fast & Secure" "Google Duo - High quality video calls" "Phone by Google - Caller ID and spam protection" If this is a policy, perhaps they'll delist their own apps from the store?