3 ms·
I, as an end user want to be able to install whatever dangerous software I want, especially as a power user. I understand the potential consequences and I don't
by ianbutler 5y ago
I, as an end user want to be able to install whatever dangerous software I want, especially as a power user. I understand the potential consequences and I don't want or need the handrails. Options and freedom are good. This is why browsers need to be split off from for profit organizations to be managed by entities that aren't concerned with the fallout if someone installs malicious software.
- kelnos 5y agoI don't think this is a great path, though. Extensions like uBlock Origin should not only be available to people like us, who understand the risk of giving extensions more permissions, and would (hypothetically) have to click through some scary warning dialogs or edit config files to allow it. Your average-Joe user probably needs extensions like this even more than we do in order to remain secure on the web.
- ianbutler 5y agoI agree it shouldn't be available just to people like us. My assumptions here are twofold, one Google doesn't want to deal with fallout from users being harmed in anyway by an extension installed from their ecosystem. It could have real monetary and regulatory impact on them. Two, this benefits their ad business by reducing how thoroughly ads can be blocked. I think browsers should be moved away from for profit organizations to separate non corporate stewardship. With that you remove the overall susceptibility to fallout and can try to give more freedom over the features a browser has or how deeply extensions can integrate, for everyone. You also obviously remove the immediate monetary incentive to restrict freedoms.