Live data from Hacker News

An update to UBlock Origin was rejected by the Chrome Web Store

github.com

111–119 of 119 posts

Re: An update to UBlock Origin was rejected by the Chrome Web Store

#111
post #43
post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What a magical world you live in where everything is free and no one needs to be paid for their work. Ads have been abused by companies over the years but whitelisting sites that whose content and services you value and don't abuse you with those ads are the only reason they can afford to exist. Edit: I get it, you don't want ads. People have abused them over the years and that's bad. My only point is that whitelisti…

The good old "there can not be free-of-cost content unless money is involved" fallacy. I am a member of many communities whose hosting costs are paid by the communities, the administrative tasks are shared by members of the communities, I "consume" many sites which only exist because their authors want to express themselves, I use sites that exist because people feel the need to share their knowledge and collections…

How is this a fallacy?

It seems like you just cherry picked a few small sites and claim that if they can do it, everyone can.

Sure hosting costs are ridiculous cheap and now anyone can publish for next to nothing. But do you get all your content from your friends posts on Facebook? There's a reason why real original and valuable content requires dedicated staff to do it and that does cost money.

You don't look at movies and think "well that could just be done for free if they really cared about it" so why attribute that to good content that just happens to be in another medium?

Re: An update to UBlock Origin was rejected by the Chrome Web Store

#112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They all abuse their users in one way or another. Tracking me across the web? How about no? What about distraction? Is time free now? And that's before we get into the malware vector problems. The few tenths of a penny you got for me seeing your ad is much less than my hourly rate for cleaning up a network infected with the latest 0day du jour. Is your (the collective your) company going to compensate me when one of…

1) Tracking is not as bad as it's made out to be. 2) You have to pay something for the content: a passive ad is far more efficient and actually more private than direct payment. 3) Malware/scams/etc are an entirely different problem. That doesn't mean the model is broken, it just means that there are bad actors that need to be effectively dealt with. Otherwise we could point to any industry and say it all sucks becau…

1) We disagree.

2) No, I really don't. I didn't pay anything to access HN, or Reddit, or any of the other sites I browsed today, including ads. Somehow, the system is still working, the incessant crocodile tears of the advertising companies be damned.

3) The model is broken because this is a systemic problem, and that problem is a complete lack of vetting from the big ad networks and the sites that use them. It's entirely too easy for a random webmaster to log into Adsense/etc, get some random javascript code, slap it up on their site, and call it a day, without understanding the implications to them or their users.

With a lack of understanding comes a lack of care and/or responsibility - and without that care and responsibility, why should I hurt my privacy, attention, and security just so you can get a few pennies?

Re: An update to UBlock Origin was rejected by the Chrome Web Store

#113
post #10

"Please reply to this email for issues regarding this item removal." Maybe he could try that?

Google is famous for never responding to anything. Which is fine; that's their business model. However, it does mean that if they wanted to communicate, they would have included the full description of the issues, in the email that notified him of the existence of the issues. It's not like they sent him a tweet. Emails can include lots of detail.

I've sent dozens of emails to Google as both a general consumer and a business vendor. I've always gotten a response.

Re: An update to UBlock Origin was rejected by the Chrome Web Store

#114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) Tracking is not as bad as it's made out to be. 2) You have to pay something for the content: a passive ad is far more efficient and actually more private than direct payment. 3) Malware/scams/etc are an entirely different problem. That doesn't mean the model is broken, it just means that there are bad actors that need to be effectively dealt with. Otherwise we could point to any industry and say it all sucks becau…

1) We disagree. 2) No, I really don't. I didn't pay anything to access HN, or Reddit, or any of the other sites I browsed today, including ads. Somehow, the system is still working, the incessant crocodile tears of the advertising companies be damned. 3) The model is broken because this is a systemic problem, and that problem is a complete lack of vetting from the big ad networks and the sites that use them. It's ent…

Just because a single entity decides to run a forum for free (and reddit/hn are all user generated content) doesn't mean content businesses are all the same.

Again you're pointing to a model when the issue is the bad actors and the poor processes. Advertising is fine, it's the industry that needs to get better at technology and enforcing rules. Part of the problem is that this is a global industry and there's little regulation.

Publishers are getting a few pennies so they can produce content and run the site which you can visit at anytime and consume. You can choose not to go to that site - but you are still going there so there MUST be value you find there and that is what the publisher is working to be compensated for.

Re: An update to UBlock Origin was rejected by the Chrome Web Store

#115
post #76
post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you sure? Could someone add some invisible 'before: content()' (or however that works in CSS) inside of an a:visited rule, and then check the DOM via Javascript to see if that content is there? I haven't tried this, but it seems like it should work unless there is something specifically blocking that

That doesn't work. Browsers are smart enough to limit what you can do with :visited. See for example: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/Privacy_and...

Good to know, thanks

Re: An update to UBlock Origin was rejected by the Chrome Web Store

#116
post #36
post #29

Besides findability, what benefits does the Chrome Web Store provide to extension developers? Does Chrome prevent or somehow limit the functionality of extensions that aren't coming from the store? (I developed a few Chrome extensions 5 years ago and used to distribute them "by hand" to users, but haven't much followed what has happened since).

You can't install extensions "by hand" any more, unless you turn on developer mode. And then you see a nag screen every time you start Chrome. Unless you're on Linux. https://www.chromium.org/developers/extensions-deployment-fa...

Thanks for the answer and the link; didn't know that (May 2015: it's recent...)

Surprised by the downvotes, wasn't the question legitimate? Or is it obvious and old news for anyone but me...?

Re: An update to UBlock Origin was rejected by the Chrome Web Store

#117
post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The good old "there can not be free-of-cost content unless money is involved" fallacy. I am a member of many communities whose hosting costs are paid by the communities, the administrative tasks are shared by members of the communities, I "consume" many sites which only exist because their authors want to express themselves, I use sites that exist because people feel the need to share their knowledge and collections…

How is this a fallacy? It seems like you just cherry picked a few small sites and claim that if they can do it, everyone can. Sure hosting costs are ridiculous cheap and now anyone can publish for next to nothing. But do you get all your content from your friends posts on Facebook? There's a reason why real original and valuable content requires dedicated staff to do it and that does cost money. You don't look at mov…

I buy physical good newspapers and magazines with cash. They don't track me, they can't DRM paper, I prefer that.

Re: An update to UBlock Origin was rejected by the Chrome Web Store

#118
post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is this a fallacy? It seems like you just cherry picked a few small sites and claim that if they can do it, everyone can. Sure hosting costs are ridiculous cheap and now anyone can publish for next to nothing. But do you get all your content from your friends posts on Facebook? There's a reason why real original and valuable content requires dedicated staff to do it and that does cost money. You don't look at mov…

I buy physical good newspapers and magazines with cash. They don't track me, they can't DRM paper, I prefer that.

Your first comment was how content can/should be free but now you're saying you paid cash for newspapers - how is that related?

The whole point is content does cost money, regardless of medium. Just because it's an article online doesn't mean it's free.

If you prefer a certain type of medium that's fine, but that doesn't mean other types aren't valid or hold value.

Re: An update to UBlock Origin was rejected by the Chrome Web Store

#119

Update: "We apologize that the update was rejected due to an snag in the review system. The updated item will be available in the Chrome Web Store within 30 minutes."

Just got the extension update notification, seems like update 1.3.2 has been released. Nothing like a top HN post to grease the wheels.

HN seems to be the official support channel for Google.
Post reply on HN