Live data from Hacker News

A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store

github.com

561–570 of 614 posts

Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store

#561

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Armin here, the developer of Search by Image. After that experience I felt it's necessary to share the entire discussion. That is how Google treats developers in exchange for enriching their platform, with a list of nonsense allegations, and if you speak up, retaliation. This practice is well documented at this point, and the best way out for those targeted is to hold your head down and maybe plead for help on social…

On the other hand, blindly accepting browser extension upgrades is a huge security vulnerability. There was a post some time ago about how popular extension projects often get bought by adware/spyware companies and they were able to publish malicious changes directly to user's browsers without any validation.

This is a situation of their own making. They're the ones that pushed for invisible automatic extension upgrades.

Firefox's old system of you needing to manually initiate upgrades was much more secure, and encouraged user responsibility for the code running on their machines. Google wants to infantilize the user, take away all choice, claim users can't make good decisions and then claim anything control they remove is for the user's benefit.

They're a bunch of stinking liers.

At this point anyone claiming to be a platform needs to regulated just like we regulate platforms before the internet.

I have a friend who works in the compliance department of one of the big international commodity exchanges. They are responsible for regulating the platform (his words) and preventing anything untoward happening, but that also means the company itself cannot "double deal" it can't participate in the markets in anyway. In addition they have two fed watchdogs that do regular invasive audits to ensure that they're actually following the laws and regulations.

It's time for internet companies to be put to the same standard:

If you call yourself a platform get ready to be treated as such.

If you don't wanna be a platform and you have 70%+ of the market get ready to get broken up.

Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store

#562

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Under "communism", man oppresses man. Under capitalism, it's just the opposite.

The "opposite" version of that quote makes less sense to me than "other way around" or "reverse". The opposite of "man oppresses man" would be "man doesn't oppress man", no...?

Maybe, I just googled the quote because I didn't remember it exactly. But I think it's actually clear that "man doesn't opress man" is not the intended meaning precisely because that wouldn't make sense.

Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store

#563
post #533

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Under "communism", man oppresses man. Under capitalism, it's just the opposite.

Under post-capitalism, the automated systems serving capital oppress man? ... woman inherits the Earth?

IMHO attribuiting actions to automated systems rather than their owners hides who's actually responsible. If we don't accept abusing power we shouldn't accept abusing power using AI either.

Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store

#564
post #561

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand, blindly accepting browser extension upgrades is a huge security vulnerability. There was a post some time ago about how popular extension projects often get bought by adware/spyware companies and they were able to publish malicious changes directly to user's browsers without any validation.

This is a situation of their own making. They're the ones that pushed for invisible automatic extension upgrades. Firefox's old system of you needing to manually initiate upgrades was much more secure, and encouraged user responsibility for the code running on their machines. Google wants to infantilize the user, take away all choice, claim users can't make good decisions and then claim anything control they remove i…

> Google wants to infantilize the user, take away all choice, claim users can't make good decisions and then claim anything control they remove is for the user's benefit.

As a developer with 18 years experience, I am not sure I have the time to make good decisions. I am not going to audit the code of everything I install by reputation. An average user has no hope.

Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store

#566

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would this actually improve competition? I agree there is a problem, but in my view and opinion the solution is enforcing a regulated market that protects consumers and allows for new competition to enter even lacking scale.

It would reduce conflicts of interest. For example, The Chrome Company would optimize for user experience rather than advertising profits.

No, the Chrome company would go out of business.

Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store

#567

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being stonewalled by bureaucracy with no explanation given is nothing new.

You can shout at bureaucrats. You have some basic rights. You can demand escalation of your issue. You can't do much when your Google account is banned.

Indeed. This feels eerily similar to my DMV experience of "which particular undocumented document did you fail to bring?"

Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store

#568
post #513

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They'd get +googol respect from me if they'd ever actually say that line. It sucks that companies can't just communicate honestly about their intentions.

Not exactly a secret, this is a quote from their Q1 earnings call: "Let me now turn to our segment financial results. Starting with the Google segment, revenues were $36.2 billion, up 17% year-over-year. In terms of the revenue detail, Google Sites revenues were $25.7 billion in the quarter, up 17% year-over-year. In terms of dollar growth, results were led again by mobile search with a strong contribution from YouTu…

Sure, but the words in the previous comment of yours were direct statement of intent. That's different from talking about what are the drivers of revenue, without mentioning what are the problems and whether they want to do something about them.

Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store

#569
post #513

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not exactly a secret, this is a quote from their Q1 earnings call: "Let me now turn to our segment financial results. Starting with the Google segment, revenues were $36.2 billion, up 17% year-over-year. In terms of the revenue detail, Google Sites revenues were $25.7 billion in the quarter, up 17% year-over-year. In terms of dollar growth, results were led again by mobile search with a strong contribution from YouTu…

Sure, but the words in the previous comment of yours were direct statement of intent. That's different from talking about what are the drivers of revenue, without mentioning what are the problems and whether they want to do something about them.

Yea, the funniest thing is I bet a big percentage of Googlers use ublock origin. Their entire business is based around pushing annoying ads that nobody wants on people.

Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store

#570

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Though it's currently available on the Android app store, and the reason it was briefly removed was because it included built-in background YouTube video playback," Oh, so being anti-competitive as their native youtube app will NOT let you play in the background unless you pay for it. Bingo.

Eh, that's sort of like saying Spotify is being "anti-competitive" when they block apps that give you Spotify Premium features for free. Third-party apps for streaming services aren't meant to be a competitive market. At least with YouTube you can still download third-party apps elsewhere, such as youtube-dl for desktops or NewPipe on F-Droid, even if apps that violate YouTube's TOS are removed from Google's own app…

> Eh, that's sort of like saying Spotify is being "anti-competitive" when they block apps that give you Spotify Premium features for free.

Blocking it on Spotify is fine. If they merged with... let's say Medium, and now blocked articles about such apps, that would be a problem.

Youtube's TOS should not get special treatment in unrelated products.

Post reply on HN