4 ms·

>pulled an Apple and banned anything but statically compiled code in WebExtensions Yes; the point of this move is specifically to render the vast majority of a

by qball 3y ago

>pulled an Apple and banned anything but statically compiled code in WebExtensions Yes; the point of this move is specifically to render the vast majority of adblocking efforts non-viable.

rektide 3y ago
I'm not quite so pointed. I am quite willing to believe 98% of the really bad shit the Chrome Store extensions team has seen, the really henious anti-user malware shit, has been dynamically delivered payloads. I think there's real cases to be made. But I also don't think those security woes justify the horror Google is besetting upon users. I don't think it justifies stripping away agency in such broad course. I think it's hypocritical & shameful in extreme they'd do what the worst most fascist competitor does on their app store. I think the team isn't honest, hasn't presented viable evidence, hasn't made the case, hasn't presented real evidence for their actions in nudering web extensions. I have many many qualms. But I think I can still see legit cause for what would make them so very very cowardly, to do such a henious & unbespeakable act as they've doing with WebExtensions MV3. Alas it's just misaligned incentives here. Ideally users would actually see what pages & the extensions do. We could be our own network, our own reviwers, we could warn each other of malware. But Google, like all app-store providers, is the only intermediary of trust, has made themselves solely responsible. Rather than tackle this as a mature problem of great powers that must be watched and regulated, they've taken an extremely convenient & easy route out that makes their job as authoritarian regulators infinitely easier, at the expense of enormous power, at the expense of becoming extreme & perposterous hypocrites at the foot of the Apple tribulations they've undergone, but in a much worse manner.

4 ms·

>pulled an Apple and banned anything but statically compiled code in WebExtensions Yes; the point of this move is specifically to render the vast majority of a

by qball 3y ago

>pulled an Apple and banned anything but statically compiled code in WebExtensions Yes; the point of this move is specifically to render the vast majority of adblocking efforts non-viable.

rektide 3y ago
I'm not quite so pointed. I am quite willing to believe 98% of the really bad shit the Chrome Store extensions team has seen, the really henious anti-user malware shit, has been dynamically delivered payloads. I think there's real cases to be made. But I also don't think those security woes justify the horror Google is besetting upon users. I don't think it justifies stripping away agency in such broad course. I think it's hypocritical & shameful in extreme they'd do what the worst most fascist competitor does on their app store. I think the team isn't honest, hasn't presented viable evidence, hasn't made the case, hasn't presented real evidence for their actions in nudering web extensions. I have many many qualms. But I think I can still see legit cause for what would make them so very very cowardly, to do such a henious & unbespeakable act as they've doing with WebExtensions MV3. Alas it's just misaligned incentives here. Ideally users would actually see what pages & the extensions do. We could be our own network, our own reviwers, we could warn each other of malware. But Google, like all app-store providers, is the only intermediary of trust, has made themselves solely responsible. Rather than tackle this as a mature problem of great powers that must be watched and regulated, they've taken an extremely convenient & easy route out that makes their job as authoritarian regulators infinitely easier, at the expense of enormous power, at the expense of becoming extreme & perposterous hypocrites at the foot of the Apple tribulations they've undergone, but in a much worse manner.