5 ms·

I am the developer of Voice In (https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/voice-in-speech-to-text-d/pjnefijmagpdjfhhkpljicbbpicelgko?hl=en https://chrome.google

I am the developer of Voice In (https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/voice-in-speech-to-text-d/pjnefijmagpdjfhhkpljicbbpicelgko?hl=en https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/voice-in-speech-to...), a Chrome extension with 300k+ users. Every month, I have 2-3 folks reach out asking for one of two things: 1) Something something Bing. Here is one from two days ago - https://imgur.com/a/KOwLRIC https://imgur.com/a/KOwLRIC 2) They want anonymized web browsing data. Google just yesterday sent out an email cracking down on this. From the email: To better protect users' browsing experience, the Quality Guideline changes clarify that an extension's purpose is to provide complimentary functionality for the browsing experience and should not seek to hijack a user's browsing or search experience. This update aims to ensure that users have full control over their browsing sessions, without any unwarranted interruptions or manipulations. By enforcing this policy, we strive to foster a safer and more enjoyable environment for all Chrome users, where their trust and satisfaction remain our top priorities. Together, we can create a web ecosystem that respects users' autonomy and offers seamless browsing experiences that truly enhance their lives.

userbinator 3y ago
Together, we can create a web ecosystem that respects users' autonomy Maybe 20 years ago I would've believed that coming from Google, but no, it's clear they're going full authoritarian to get users under their control like the rest of Big Tech and using the classic "security" argument to do it.
- f33d5173 3y ago
  It is quizzical, isn't it? "Pervasive tracking of users goes against their autonomy". But what about when you do it? "We need to be able to keep the lights on, don't we? And anyways, users chose to visit our page, so they consented to any tracking" - how does any of that not apply to extensions the user installs?
  - Taywee 3y ago
    The cognitive dissonance of being a company that makes all its money spying on users, has a profit motivation to prevent others from spying on users, and needing to pretend to take the moral high ground for PR reasons at the same time.
  - CyberDildonics 3y ago
    You are talking about google's hypocrisy, but quizzical actually means mildly amused and not confusing or ironic.
NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
> complimentary functionality Did they really spell it that way? No monetization allowed?
palant 3y ago
Note: I am the author of this article. Well, Google has been introducing policy changes meant to restrict abuse of extension privileges for quite a while. It won’t help however as long as they don’t manage to enforce the policies effectively. These extensions have been at it for at least two years. It was already against Google’s policies back then. Users flagged these extensions back then already. Yet they remained in Chrome Web Store. Note that I found one similar extension that was removed in March this year. I have no idea why Google removed it (it cannot be user complains) or why they didn’t search Chrome Web Store for similar code.
- TedDoesntTalk 3y ago
  Removing extensions used by 55 million users is weighed against the loss of functionality provided by those extensions. Maybe Google just doesn’t want to piss off 55 million users (actually a lot more since, as you say, your list of compromised extensions is not complete)
  - palant 3y ago
    Yes, much better to let 55 million users blame the browser for redirecting search queries, excessive ads, erratic behavior and data leaks. :-) Funny thing is: I can imagine Google being fine with everything on this list but the first point. When it comes to hijacking search, Google is absolutely no fun.
namaria 3y ago
>1) Something something Bing. Here is one from two days ago - https://imgur.com/a/KOwLRIC https://imgur.com/a/KOwLRIC What a horrible word soup of toxic corporate speak...
- axus 3y ago
  Hailey at TechAdsology was right though, it really was a limited time offer
jacquesm 3y ago
I wonder what Bing has to do with it and whether or not MS is even aware of any of this or if it is 'at arms length'. For sure a great way to wreck your reputation, and likely you'll be blacklisted for life.
aio2 3y ago
I know this is off topic, but nice to meet you famous dev

userbinator 3y ago

Together, we can create a web ecosystem that respects users' autonomy Maybe 20 years ago I would've believed that coming from Google, but no, it's clear they're going full authoritarian to get users under their control like the rest of Big Tech and using the classic "security" argument to do it.

f33d5173 3y ago
It is quizzical, isn't it? "Pervasive tracking of users goes against their autonomy". But what about when you do it? "We need to be able to keep the lights on, don't we? And anyways, users chose to visit our page, so they consented to any tracking" - how does any of that not apply to extensions the user installs?
- Taywee 3y ago
  The cognitive dissonance of being a company that makes all its money spying on users, has a profit motivation to prevent others from spying on users, and needing to pretend to take the moral high ground for PR reasons at the same time.
- CyberDildonics 3y ago
  You are talking about google's hypocrisy, but quizzical actually means mildly amused and not confusing or ironic.

NoZebra120vClip 3y ago

> complimentary functionality Did they really spell it that way? No monetization allowed?

palant 3y ago

Note: I am the author of this article. Well, Google has been introducing policy changes meant to restrict abuse of extension privileges for quite a while. It won’t help however as long as they don’t manage to enforce the policies effectively. These extensions have been at it for at least two years. It was already against Google’s policies back then. Users flagged these extensions back then already. Yet they remained in Chrome Web Store. Note that I found one similar extension that was removed in March this year. I have no idea why Google removed it (it cannot be user complains) or why they didn’t search Chrome Web Store for similar code.

TedDoesntTalk 3y ago
Removing extensions used by 55 million users is weighed against the loss of functionality provided by those extensions. Maybe Google just doesn’t want to piss off 55 million users (actually a lot more since, as you say, your list of compromised extensions is not complete)
- palant 3y ago
  Yes, much better to let 55 million users blame the browser for redirecting search queries, excessive ads, erratic behavior and data leaks. :-) Funny thing is: I can imagine Google being fine with everything on this list but the first point. When it comes to hijacking search, Google is absolutely no fun.

namaria 3y ago

>1) Something something Bing. Here is one from two days ago - https://imgur.com/a/KOwLRIC https://imgur.com/a/KOwLRIC What a horrible word soup of toxic corporate speak...

axus 3y ago
Hailey at TechAdsology was right though, it really was a limited time offer

jacquesm 3y ago

I wonder what Bing has to do with it and whether or not MS is even aware of any of this or if it is 'at arms length'. For sure a great way to wreck your reputation, and likely you'll be blacklisted for life.

aio2 3y ago

I know this is off topic, but nice to meet you famous dev