27 ms·

Don't they have a vetting process for extensions? Even if they don't, you, the (power)user should be able to manually turn on whatever you want, should you so d

by pmdr 2y ago

Don't they have a vetting process for extensions? Even if they don't, you, the (power)user should be able to manually turn on whatever you want, should you so desire. What's stunning is that we're moving away from this, for our "security." And by then "use Firefox/something else" won't be helpful when entire websites will refuse to work on anything else but Chrome.

ikiris 2y ago
Not really, no. Putting security in scare quotes doesn’t make the actual risk go away. This is a blatant anti ad block move, but you aren’t making reasonable arguments either.
- pmdr 2y ago
  I'm not sure how not being able to use websites without Chrome is unreasonable, though. If it hasn't come to that already, it will soon. One can find reasonable use cases for every security measure that takes away freedom. That doesn't mean that all such decisions are balanced, and I'm advocating that the user be the one deciding their level of security, knowingly. That's the most important part being taken away, actually. Until there's palpable resistance (or even doubt or endless debate), those taking things away have no reason to stop.
  - ikiris 2y ago
    At no point did anyone argue you should be required to use chrome to use some websites. That is a complete strawman you made up here. No one is requiring you to use chrome. As to your security argument: If you've never seen the past user's desktops filled with browser hijacking and ad / virus ware, then I'm happy for you, but ignoring serious security concerns isn't a valid approach to managing an end user product regardless of the nebulous slippery slope freedoms argument you're attempting to make. This is not an advocation to ban all adblockers, but you are advocating for basically a free for all, and we've seen how that works. It doesn't and this entire discussion is a waste of time.
    - pmdr 2y ago
      > the nebulous slippery slope freedoms argument you're attempting to make. But it is a slippery slope and we're already sliding down, even if we don't want to. It's hard to make users switch to something else. I know it, I assume you know it, probably everyone on HN knows it. But, and this is key, Google knows it. People are resistant to change, especially if it means altering their workflow. Where said workflow depends on a monopolistic product that's key to unlocking even more ad revenue, do not think that those with incentive won't hesitate to push for more restrictions while claiming they have our own best interest in mind. No one brought it up now, but there have been cases of websites being deliberately made slower on Firefox. I don't think it's unreasonable to think that this will continue happening. If you do, then let's agree to disagree. > but you are advocating for basically a free for all, and we've seen how that works. I'm not advocating for a "free for all." I'm advocating for a "free for the knowledgeable & responsible." I'm advocating for informed consent in computing. We've been moving away from that, more so because of greed than goodwill.
IshKebab 2y ago
> Don't they have a vetting process for extensions? No. > Even if they don't, you, the (power)user should be able to manually turn on whatever you want, should you so desire. It's not as simple as that. As long as it is possible for extensions to have no-holds-barred access to your browser then they'll make that a condition of use, and unsophisticated users (approximately everyone) will just say "eh ok". Browser extensions are a particularly dangerous case because they auto-update by default. It is very common for popular extensions to get sold to bad actors who then update them to inject ads into everything you view, or worse. If you make it impossible for extensions to do that, then they can no longer make it a condition of installation.
- pmdr 2y ago
  > It's not as simple as that. As long as it is possible for extensions to have no-holds-barred access to your browser then they'll make that a condition of use, and unsophisticated users (approximately everyone) will just say "eh ok". Then make it complicated enough so the user has to click through several screens, type in that they know what they're doing and be warned that if extension/website X asks them to do Y, they're getting f'd and should stop. Beyond that, it's their fault. Why can't we treat browsers like we used to treat PCs? Why do we have to have to make them so "safe" like we did with phones? Tons of scams happen on phones now, so it didn't quite work out, but we still gave up a lot. Personally, I'm rarely a Chrome user. I'm most afraid of stuff not working in non-Chromium browsers, though.
  - IshKebab 2y ago
    > Then make it complicated enough so the user has to click through several screens, type in that they know what they're doing and be warned that if extension/website X asks them to do Y, they're getting f'd and should stop. Beyond that, it's their fault. Yeah I mean... that's just an arms race. You now have to type "allow pasting" into the dev console to paste Javascript there. Guess why. Browsers can't ever win that race. Malicious extensions will just say "go to settings and blah blah blah".
    - 2y ago

by pmdr 2y ago

ikiris 2y ago

Not really, no. Putting security in scare quotes doesn’t make the actual risk go away. This is a blatant anti ad block move, but you aren’t making reasonable arguments either.

pmdr 2y ago
I'm not sure how not being able to use websites without Chrome is unreasonable, though. If it hasn't come to that already, it will soon. One can find reasonable use cases for every security measure that takes away freedom. That doesn't mean that all such decisions are balanced, and I'm advocating that the user be the one deciding their level of security, knowingly. That's the most important part being taken away, actually. Until there's palpable resistance (or even doubt or endless debate), those taking things away have no reason to stop.
- ikiris 2y ago
  At no point did anyone argue you should be required to use chrome to use some websites. That is a complete strawman you made up here. No one is requiring you to use chrome. As to your security argument: If you've never seen the past user's desktops filled with browser hijacking and ad / virus ware, then I'm happy for you, but ignoring serious security concerns isn't a valid approach to managing an end user product regardless of the nebulous slippery slope freedoms argument you're attempting to make. This is not an advocation to ban all adblockers, but you are advocating for basically a free for all, and we've seen how that works. It doesn't and this entire discussion is a waste of time.
  - pmdr 2y ago
    > the nebulous slippery slope freedoms argument you're attempting to make. But it is a slippery slope and we're already sliding down, even if we don't want to. It's hard to make users switch to something else. I know it, I assume you know it, probably everyone on HN knows it. But, and this is key, Google knows it. People are resistant to change, especially if it means altering their workflow. Where said workflow depends on a monopolistic product that's key to unlocking even more ad revenue, do not think that those with incentive won't hesitate to push for more restrictions while claiming they have our own best interest in mind. No one brought it up now, but there have been cases of websites being deliberately made slower on Firefox. I don't think it's unreasonable to think that this will continue happening. If you do, then let's agree to disagree. > but you are advocating for basically a free for all, and we've seen how that works. I'm not advocating for a "free for all." I'm advocating for a "free for the knowledgeable & responsible." I'm advocating for informed consent in computing. We've been moving away from that, more so because of greed than goodwill.

IshKebab 2y ago

> Don't they have a vetting process for extensions? No. > Even if they don't, you, the (power)user should be able to manually turn on whatever you want, should you so desire. It's not as simple as that. As long as it is possible for extensions to have no-holds-barred access to your browser then they'll make that a condition of use, and unsophisticated users (approximately everyone) will just say "eh ok". Browser extensions are a particularly dangerous case because they auto-update by default. It is very common for popular extensions to get sold to bad actors who then update them to inject ads into everything you view, or worse. If you make it impossible for extensions to do that, then they can no longer make it a condition of installation.

pmdr 2y ago
> It's not as simple as that. As long as it is possible for extensions to have no-holds-barred access to your browser then they'll make that a condition of use, and unsophisticated users (approximately everyone) will just say "eh ok". Then make it complicated enough so the user has to click through several screens, type in that they know what they're doing and be warned that if extension/website X asks them to do Y, they're getting f'd and should stop. Beyond that, it's their fault. Why can't we treat browsers like we used to treat PCs? Why do we have to have to make them so "safe" like we did with phones? Tons of scams happen on phones now, so it didn't quite work out, but we still gave up a lot. Personally, I'm rarely a Chrome user. I'm most afraid of stuff not working in non-Chromium browsers, though.
- IshKebab 2y ago
  > Then make it complicated enough so the user has to click through several screens, type in that they know what they're doing and be warned that if extension/website X asks them to do Y, they're getting f'd and should stop. Beyond that, it's their fault. Yeah I mean... that's just an arms race. You now have to type "allow pasting" into the dev console to paste Javascript there. Guess why. Browsers can't ever win that race. Malicious extensions will just say "go to settings and blah blah blah".
  - 2y ago