7 ms·

How hucksters are manipulating Google to promote shady Chrome extensions

134 points by undercut 2y ago

nubinetwork 2y ago
> Apparently, some extension authors figured out that the Chrome Web Store search index is shared across all languages Oh, you mean like google ads and android app ads? Because both think I'm either Chinese or Korean, despite being neither.
- dylan604 2y ago
  Targeting at its finest.
Over2Chars 2y ago
These rogue extensions are "surreptitiously monetizing web searches" - but doesn't Google conspicuously monetize web searches? So it seems the Google TOS bans competition in search monetization using their "open source" browser. Isn't it odd that an "open source" browser is apparently designed to provide a monopoly on search monetization by the nice people who give it to you for free? And being 80% or so of all searches: https://www.statista.com/statistics/216573/worldwide-market-share-of-search-engines/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/216573/worldwide-market-... It seems like Peter Thiel's claim that google is a search advertising monopoly masquerading as a (competitive, non-monopoly) technology company might be spot on.
- HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
  Small info piece: Chrome isn't open source. Otherwise I agree (even if it means agreeing with Peter Thiel in this case).
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - Over2Chars 2y ago
    Well shiver me timbers, if that isn't a hoot. Maybe my vernacular is off, "source available" ? ah "licensed freeware" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Chrome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Chrome
    - asddubs 2y ago
      chromium is open source, chrome is chromium + proprietary stuff added on top
  - surajrmal 2y ago
    99% of its source is open. I wonder what you think of open source applications that make API calls into closed source cloud systems?
    - thowawatp302 2y ago
      Where does that 99% figure come from?
      - Over2Chars 2y ago
        I think it's 100% open source chromium, minus some unknown percentage that's closed source surveillance blobs = ~99%. That's the maths I'm inferring.
- grues-dinner 2y ago
  > Peter Thiel's claim that google is a search advertising monopoly masquerading as a (competitive, non-monopoly) technology company That's not a very deep insight, it's been pretty obvious since they bought out DoubleClick in 2007.
  - Over2Chars 2y ago
    I agree, I think it's not a deep insight, but Thiel notes (in his 'zero to one' speech he gave) that Google actively pretends not to be a search advertising monopoly, and instead pretends to be a competitive technology company, in a wide range of technology fields, to "hide" their monopoly. Thiel is openly advocating monopolies, and says competition is for losers. I think he's just calling GOOG out for their marketing, and noting their market strategy to deflect attention away from their monopoly. I, for one, have never heard anyone publicly mention this besides Thiel. Have you?
    - alephnerd 2y ago
      I'm not sure I buy Thiel's argument becuase plenty of their non-search businesses such as Google Cloud, GSuite, Waymo, and Verily have become pretty successful in their own right, and vertical integration is another form of monopoly that tends to cracked down on.
      - Over2Chars 2y ago
        Check out the big blue box. I think Thiel's point is spot on: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1093781/distribution-of-googles-revenues-by-segment/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1093781/distribution-of-...
      - whatshisface 2y ago
        If I had a monopoly on sugar and traded in silver and healthcare, I would still have a monopoly on sugar.
        tsunamifury 2y ago
- WrongAssumption 2y ago
  Can you quote the relevant section of the TOS?
  - Over2Chars 2y ago
    I cannot. I am simply paraphrasing the leading sentence: "The people overseeing the security of Google’s Chrome browser explicitly forbid third-party extension developers from trying to manipulate how the browser extensions they submit are presented in the Chrome Web Store. " I assumed that this explicit prohibition would be a "TOS". I could be wrong. Maybe it's somewhere else or called something else.
- wbl 2y ago
  The competition is a click away.
donatj 2y ago
I have two Chrome extensions in the store. They're not very popular and are really just features I wanted for my own use. I think I have less than 100 users total. At least once a week I get emails from people - offering money to add their "tracking" code - wanting to purchased the extension outright What they clearly want is access to my modest install base to push questionable code onto. I certainly am not going for these offers, but I could certainly see someone less financially secure giving in to it, and that scares me a little. The idea of paid malware insertion in smaller packages is kind of troubling in general. How often just in life in general do we just trust opaque binaries to be clean.
- luckylion 2y ago
  Did they seem personalized or do they just mass-mail every developer they can find? 100 users seem very little to go through the trouble of acquiring an extension and then push bad code. Did they ever give you an idea of what they are ready to pay?
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - donatj 2y ago
    They seem pretty generic, like spray and pray. I am sure they just scrape all the developers details from the Chrome Store and bug them all. I don't seem to have saved any of them but I do recall one offering me $6,400 for my extension because there was a small voice in the back of my head whispering "that's a lot of money..." Most of the ones wanting me to install code offer ongoing payments.
    - luckylion 2y ago
      Thanks, that sounds like a lot of money. I assume they'd start negotiating once you respond and they look into it, I can't see them paying $6-10 per user. At that point, it has to be cheaper to just build extensions and let them gather a few users, right? Wild market though, and I applaud developers who reject the offers. I'm sure that small voice becomes a lot louder if you built an extension that now has 100k users.
issafram 2y ago
Google would prefer to focus on limiting ad blockers with V3 instead of protecting users from these extensions.
- creato 2y ago
  V3 reduces the damage extensions can do to users. Complain about the impact to ad blockers if you want but this point is nonsense.
- insin 2y ago
  The "This extension may soon no longer be supported because it doesn't follow best practices for Chrome extensions" warning on the uBlock Origin listing is one the shadiest things on the Chrome Web Store.

134 points by undercut 2y ago

> Apparently, some extension authors figured out that the Chrome Web Store search index is shared across all languages Oh, you mean like google ads and android app ads? Because both think I'm either Chinese or Korean, despite being neither.

dylan604 2y ago
Targeting at its finest.

Over2Chars 2y ago

These rogue extensions are "surreptitiously monetizing web searches" - but doesn't Google conspicuously monetize web searches? So it seems the Google TOS bans competition in search monetization using their "open source" browser. Isn't it odd that an "open source" browser is apparently designed to provide a monopoly on search monetization by the nice people who give it to you for free? And being 80% or so of all searches: https://www.statista.com/statistics/216573/worldwide-market-share-of-search-engines/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/216573/worldwide-market-... It seems like Peter Thiel's claim that google is a search advertising monopoly masquerading as a (competitive, non-monopoly) technology company might be spot on.

HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
Small info piece: Chrome isn't open source. Otherwise I agree (even if it means agreeing with Peter Thiel in this case).
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- Over2Chars 2y ago
  Well shiver me timbers, if that isn't a hoot. Maybe my vernacular is off, "source available" ? ah "licensed freeware" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Chrome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Chrome
  - asddubs 2y ago
    chromium is open source, chrome is chromium + proprietary stuff added on top
- surajrmal 2y ago
  99% of its source is open. I wonder what you think of open source applications that make API calls into closed source cloud systems?
  - thowawatp302 2y ago
    Where does that 99% figure come from?
    - Over2Chars 2y ago
      I think it's 100% open source chromium, minus some unknown percentage that's closed source surveillance blobs = ~99%. That's the maths I'm inferring.
grues-dinner 2y ago
> Peter Thiel's claim that google is a search advertising monopoly masquerading as a (competitive, non-monopoly) technology company That's not a very deep insight, it's been pretty obvious since they bought out DoubleClick in 2007.
- Over2Chars 2y ago
  I agree, I think it's not a deep insight, but Thiel notes (in his 'zero to one' speech he gave) that Google actively pretends not to be a search advertising monopoly, and instead pretends to be a competitive technology company, in a wide range of technology fields, to "hide" their monopoly. Thiel is openly advocating monopolies, and says competition is for losers. I think he's just calling GOOG out for their marketing, and noting their market strategy to deflect attention away from their monopoly. I, for one, have never heard anyone publicly mention this besides Thiel. Have you?
  - alephnerd 2y ago
    I'm not sure I buy Thiel's argument becuase plenty of their non-search businesses such as Google Cloud, GSuite, Waymo, and Verily have become pretty successful in their own right, and vertical integration is another form of monopoly that tends to cracked down on.
    - Over2Chars 2y ago
      Check out the big blue box. I think Thiel's point is spot on: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1093781/distribution-of-googles-revenues-by-segment/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1093781/distribution-of-...
    - whatshisface 2y ago
      If I had a monopoly on sugar and traded in silver and healthcare, I would still have a monopoly on sugar.
      - tsunamifury 2y ago
WrongAssumption 2y ago
Can you quote the relevant section of the TOS?
- Over2Chars 2y ago
  I cannot. I am simply paraphrasing the leading sentence: "The people overseeing the security of Google’s Chrome browser explicitly forbid third-party extension developers from trying to manipulate how the browser extensions they submit are presented in the Chrome Web Store. " I assumed that this explicit prohibition would be a "TOS". I could be wrong. Maybe it's somewhere else or called something else.
wbl 2y ago
The competition is a click away.

donatj 2y ago

I have two Chrome extensions in the store. They're not very popular and are really just features I wanted for my own use. I think I have less than 100 users total. At least once a week I get emails from people - offering money to add their "tracking" code - wanting to purchased the extension outright What they clearly want is access to my modest install base to push questionable code onto. I certainly am not going for these offers, but I could certainly see someone less financially secure giving in to it, and that scares me a little. The idea of paid malware insertion in smaller packages is kind of troubling in general. How often just in life in general do we just trust opaque binaries to be clean.

luckylion 2y ago
Did they seem personalized or do they just mass-mail every developer they can find? 100 users seem very little to go through the trouble of acquiring an extension and then push bad code. Did they ever give you an idea of what they are ready to pay?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- donatj 2y ago
  They seem pretty generic, like spray and pray. I am sure they just scrape all the developers details from the Chrome Store and bug them all. I don't seem to have saved any of them but I do recall one offering me $6,400 for my extension because there was a small voice in the back of my head whispering "that's a lot of money..." Most of the ones wanting me to install code offer ongoing payments.
  - luckylion 2y ago
    Thanks, that sounds like a lot of money. I assume they'd start negotiating once you respond and they look into it, I can't see them paying $6-10 per user. At that point, it has to be cheaper to just build extensions and let them gather a few users, right? Wild market though, and I applaud developers who reject the offers. I'm sure that small voice becomes a lot louder if you built an extension that now has 100k users.

issafram 2y ago

Google would prefer to focus on limiting ad blockers with V3 instead of protecting users from these extensions.

creato 2y ago
V3 reduces the damage extensions can do to users. Complain about the impact to ad blockers if you want but this point is nonsense.
insin 2y ago
The "This extension may soon no longer be supported because it doesn't follow best practices for Chrome extensions" warning on the uBlock Origin listing is one the shadiest things on the Chrome Web Store.