2 ms·
> Providing full read/write access to all websites is a huge security risk, and the fact that we're willing to do it is really a testament to how bad the state
by wtallis 2y ago
> Providing full read/write access to all websites is a huge security risk, and the fact that we're willing to do it is really a testament to how bad the state of the web is without adblockers.
That seems to be completely ignoring that extensions aren't just independent self-contained programs. They're intended to extend and modify the capabilities of your user agent to better suit the needs of the user. Trusting the user agent with full read/write access to the data it's fetching is fundamental to the purpose of a user agent. Sure, it's nice when you can sandbox a helper, but it's irresponsible to suggest there's anything wrong or unusual about having the kind of powerful extensions that Google doesn't want you to have.
- chimeracoder 2y ago> Sure, it's nice when you can sandbox a helper, but it's irresponsible to suggest there's anything wrong or unusual about having the kind of powerful extensions that Google doesn't want you to have. You're arguing against a straw man here.
- wtallis 2y agoWhat's inaccurate? Do you really want to claim that Google isn't actively reducing the scope of what browser extensions can do on behalf of end users? Having security as a justification does nothing to erase the fact that they are locking down the browser platform and making some useful categories of extensions impossible.