6 ms·

For context, this is is not allowing websites to prevent View Source for all users. Rather it is a setting that administrators can set on Google Chrome installa

For context, this is is not allowing websites to prevent View Source for all users. Rather it is a setting that administrators can set on Google Chrome installations within their company/school/etc. That said, I highly doubt that Google would take this feature request seriously if this were not associated with another Google property. For example, I can't imagine that if Typeform users opened a similar bug ticket that it would see any traction. To me this highlights a danger I had not considered before around the monopoly power of Google - inane requests that would benefit properties within the Google ecosystem get undue consideration despite it harming the broader ecosystem.

jsnell 5y ago
I don't think your theory fits the facts... The bug is from 2018, and was fixed three years later. So it doesn't seem like there was any kind of special prioritization going on here. It was also fixed by a person working at Microsoft, not by somebody at Google.
- josephcsible 5y ago
  I think the point that was if anyone but Google wanted this, it'd get laughed all the way to WONTFIX.
  - judge2020 5y ago
    As shown in the changelog, the bug was filed by a user @amplifiedit.com, and was seen as a worthwhile bug to fix by Brian Malcolm "Taking ownership as the client team in BVE will work on this item"[0]; however, it was stalled for nearly 3 years until Eric submitted a patch for it[1]. While Google thinks it's worthwhile to fix, Microsoft is trying to have a faster-than-usual rise in adoption for their new Edge which is based on Chromium, so that means fixing as many things as possible that their business/EDU customers complain about. BTW Google already allowed MDM (device) admins to disable devtools, but everyone involved in the issue also wanted it to disable view-source since it allowed students to look at the HTML. 0: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=895462#c35 https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=895462... 1: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=895462#c54 https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=895462...
  - jsnell 5y ago
    Yes, I understand that's that was the point. But again, Google clearly didn't actually particularly want this since nobody from that company actually worked on this bug during the three years it was open. Your suggestion seems equally invalid. The Chromium bug tracker currently has about 9k open feature requests. A lot of them are more niche than this, have no indication on the bug that they're relevant to Google, and have still not been closed as WONTFIX. So it really was not a valid point to start with, and I don't understand why you're doubling down on it like that.
azalemeth 5y ago
Is it remotely possible to vote against this policy? Who controls Chromium features – I know it's open source and thus one could always fork it, but how is the project governed? "Benign" dictatorship?
- tialaramex 5y ago
  You think you should get to vote against other people's local policies? Just you, or do we each get a vote? Where do I get my list of your policies in case I need to vote against some of them?
  - azalemeth 5y ago
    That's a rather aggressive way of answering my question. I meant "who decided to let chromium disable view-source, and if this decision is unpopular, can it be reconsidered?". Your local policy is yours, but in much the same way that I don't think it's a good idea for an OS provider to provide a single, easy-to-use button saying "spy on this user who I pinky-swear is a member of my family under 18 and tell me everything they do and where their mobile is", an option to permit the disabling of view-source in a mainstream browser does not fit easily with me. I accept that there might be some situations in which you'd want to do it, but honestly it's the thin-edge of the wedge. "Benign dictatorship" is a common form of open-source project governance; it's not unreasonable to expect that is the case here (with Google, or a part of it, as the dictator). That being said, many open-source projects are managed in a way other than "benign dictatorship". Debian, for example, famously uses the Condorcet method [1] if there are any significant ideological disputes; see this vote [2] about Richard Stallman for an example. To my mind, a browser supporting -- in whatever form -- an option to disallow "view-source" could well be a controversial enough decision to necessitate a vote through this means. I don't know how Chromium is governed, and all I meant to do was ask how. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method [2] https://www.debian.org/vote/2021/vote_002#outcome https://www.debian.org/vote/2021/vote_002#outcome
    - seba_dos1 5y ago
tinus_hn 5y ago
Security by obscurity. It’s the Enterprise way.

jsnell 5y ago

I don't think your theory fits the facts... The bug is from 2018, and was fixed three years later. So it doesn't seem like there was any kind of special prioritization going on here. It was also fixed by a person working at Microsoft, not by somebody at Google.

josephcsible 5y ago
I think the point that was if anyone but Google wanted this, it'd get laughed all the way to WONTFIX.
- judge2020 5y ago
  As shown in the changelog, the bug was filed by a user @amplifiedit.com, and was seen as a worthwhile bug to fix by Brian Malcolm "Taking ownership as the client team in BVE will work on this item"[0]; however, it was stalled for nearly 3 years until Eric submitted a patch for it[1]. While Google thinks it's worthwhile to fix, Microsoft is trying to have a faster-than-usual rise in adoption for their new Edge which is based on Chromium, so that means fixing as many things as possible that their business/EDU customers complain about. BTW Google already allowed MDM (device) admins to disable devtools, but everyone involved in the issue also wanted it to disable view-source since it allowed students to look at the HTML. 0: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=895462#c35 https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=895462... 1: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=895462#c54 https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=895462...
- jsnell 5y ago
  Yes, I understand that's that was the point. But again, Google clearly didn't actually particularly want this since nobody from that company actually worked on this bug during the three years it was open. Your suggestion seems equally invalid. The Chromium bug tracker currently has about 9k open feature requests. A lot of them are more niche than this, have no indication on the bug that they're relevant to Google, and have still not been closed as WONTFIX. So it really was not a valid point to start with, and I don't understand why you're doubling down on it like that.

azalemeth 5y ago

Is it remotely possible to vote against this policy? Who controls Chromium features – I know it's open source and thus one could always fork it, but how is the project governed? "Benign" dictatorship?

tialaramex 5y ago
You think you should get to vote against other people's local policies? Just you, or do we each get a vote? Where do I get my list of your policies in case I need to vote against some of them?
- azalemeth 5y ago
  That's a rather aggressive way of answering my question. I meant "who decided to let chromium disable view-source, and if this decision is unpopular, can it be reconsidered?". Your local policy is yours, but in much the same way that I don't think it's a good idea for an OS provider to provide a single, easy-to-use button saying "spy on this user who I pinky-swear is a member of my family under 18 and tell me everything they do and where their mobile is", an option to permit the disabling of view-source in a mainstream browser does not fit easily with me. I accept that there might be some situations in which you'd want to do it, but honestly it's the thin-edge of the wedge. "Benign dictatorship" is a common form of open-source project governance; it's not unreasonable to expect that is the case here (with Google, or a part of it, as the dictator). That being said, many open-source projects are managed in a way other than "benign dictatorship". Debian, for example, famously uses the Condorcet method [1] if there are any significant ideological disputes; see this vote [2] about Richard Stallman for an example. To my mind, a browser supporting -- in whatever form -- an option to disallow "view-source" could well be a controversial enough decision to necessitate a vote through this means. I don't know how Chromium is governed, and all I meant to do was ask how. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method [2] https://www.debian.org/vote/2021/vote_002#outcome https://www.debian.org/vote/2021/vote_002#outcome
  - seba_dos1 5y ago

tinus_hn 5y ago

Security by obscurity. It’s the Enterprise way.