5 ms·

>shouldn't it be within the user's purview to decide what to allow and what not? Imagine it this way: The local supermarket is selling a product which claims t

>shouldn't it be within the user's purview to decide what to allow and what not? Imagine it this way: The local supermarket is selling a product which claims to be food but actually contains a highly toxic poison. And then someone justifies it still being allowed because it's still up to the buyer to choose to buy and consume it. It's on the user, the should be responsible to look for trusted brands that do not disguise poison as food or they could take it down to their local lab to test it for toxicity before consuming it. It's obviously completely absurd to expect the user to protect themselves from malice like this which is rampant on browser extension stores.

pmontra 5y ago
> Imagine it this way: The local supermarket is selling a product which claims to be food but actually contains a highly toxic poison Basically anything on sale if had in the wrong dose. Example: a can of a sugary drink is OK, drink 6 of them per day and it's going to be bad for your health. Let's try a different metaphor.
- stan_rogers 5y ago
  Okay. How about buying something that was legitimately food when you bought it, but updates to poison - and there's really no choice about allowing updates, since previously safe foodstuffs can become poison if left as purchased - in your cupboard?
  - 6yyyyyy 5y ago
    I can't tell if you're being sarcastic.
    - SilverRed 5y ago
      Why would it be sarcastic? Malware authors buy legitimate extensions for mountains of cash and then stick spyware in them. Users have no idea their previously good and trusted extension is now malware.