Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Let's guess what Google requires in 14 days or they kill our extension

blog.pushbullet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

571–580 of 811 posts

Re: Let's guess what Google requires in 14 days or they kill our extension

#571

Post by cycomanic »

I think the interpretation that Google does this because it does not want to compromise the review process to malicious extension authors is a very generous one. As others pointed out, a motivated enough entity could very well be probing the system using multiple submissions (sure it gets your account banned, just use several accounts).

No what is really going on is that Google wants the ability to reject an app for any reason without actually having to give the reasons. To for example protect a business interest.

The only reason for not making a transparent decision process is because you want to keep the ability to make decisions that don't follow the rules you set.

To the people saying that we should keep rules secret so that malware authors can't work around the rules, I ask: the same argument applies to laws, but most people agree that we want transparency. So what makes this different in principle? (I understand that Google might not have an obligation, but you are saying that they do the right thing)

Re: Let's guess what Google requires in 14 days or they kill our extension

#572

Post by TheKarateKid »

cycomanic wrote: post #571

I think the interpretation that Google does this because it does not want to compromise the review process to malicious extension authors is a very generous one. As others pointed out, a motivated enough entity could very well be probing the system using multiple submissions (sure it gets your account banned, just use several accounts). No what is really going on is that Google wants the ability to reject an app for…

Exactly. It's also completely contradictory to Google's Project Zero, where they expose security flaws in great detail publicly with the intention to educate users and devs to fix the issue and prevent it from happening again.

At the very least, Google should provide a way to contact an actual human - especially if the developer has 1M+ users.

Re: Let's guess what Google requires in 14 days or they kill our extension

#573

Post by ocdtrekkie »

WarOnPrivacy wrote: post #482
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

DNS-over-HTTPS was the big one for me. Mozilla betrayed us here. They've pushed something browsers shouldn't do into the browser, and in my case, started to roll it out to my browsers despite my network device being set to block it. They actually managed to implement a policy that respects user choice and freedom less than Chrome, which only implements DoH if your set DNS provider supports it.

> DNS-over-HTTPS was the big one for me. Mozilla betrayed us here. Betrayal indicates some intent to harm users; the intent of DoH is clearly to safeguard users. However, the rollout was absolutely hamfisted & shortsided. It's notable that the DoH deployment is about the only example here of Firefox harming users. Compare that with Google rewriting Chrome's code to hobble uBlock Origin & leave users more vulnerable t…

Don't get me wrong, I would always choose Firefox over Chrome, but I lament the lack of a major option that seems to not follow Google's plans and generally assume they know better than the user how to use the web.

Re: Let's guess what Google requires in 14 days or they kill our extension

#575

Post by PopeDotNinja »

lidHanteyk wrote: post #492
chc wrote: post #486

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't very actionable advice, though, since there is basically no such thing as a software product that isn't built on somebody else's property. You might think, "Ah-ha, web apps!" But no, Google can still casually destroy you there. Or you might think, "Ah-ha, desktop apps!" But the OS vendor can casually destroy you there.

Maybe this means that software shouldn't be distributed as products, but as code. Maybe people should be free to run code of their choice on their computers.

I am not helping my parents compile Gentoo Linux.

Re: Let's guess what Google requires in 14 days or they kill our extension

#576

Post by pdonis »

If Douglas Adams were still around, he'd put "Get actual assistance from a human at Google" on the list of "Recreational Impossibilities" in the Hitchhiker's Guide, right after "Get the Brantisvogan Civil Service to acknowledge a change of address card".

Re: Let's guess what Google requires in 14 days or they kill our extension

#577

Post by tomaszs »

Unfortunately this is a fancy new way of communication of tech corporations. Facebook, Apple, Google. Name one.

Do please us sir. Three times you shall try.

I would not consider any company that takes that approach as a reliable business partner.

Maybe it will be possible to please the platform this time. But this is a strong hint the business should not depend on the Google extension platform.

Escape it while you can

Re: Let's guess what Google requires in 14 days or they kill our extension

#578

Post by csours »

Filligree wrote: post #513
csours wrote: post #497

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The tool could tell them what the problem is. There are fine grained permissions, and Google could say which of those fine grained permissions are used badly. OR, they could just restrict those permissions themselves in the browser.

If it did, it'd be easy for malware authors to work around the scanner. The system we've got right now isn't great , but I've yet to see any better ideas.

I understand that's the reason they give. I just don't believe them. At some point you have to assume good faith. Maybe that point is when the item in question has over a million users and a good rating.

Re: Let's guess what Google requires in 14 days or they kill our extension

#579

Post by gumby »

tracker1 wrote: post #354
gumby wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can just do forwarding. I’ve run my own mail service since the 80s, and when I need a google login to work with someone I just create it and forward my mail. When the project is over, just delete it. Easy-peasy. Unless a client wants to use google docs I‘ve never found an account to add any value anyway. I don’t use google search much any more but when I do it works fine without cookies. And I try chrome occasion…

I was referring to google hosting the mail service, so no need to diy or pay for another server, and you don't need to use gmail with it.

Oh, ok. In my case some of my servers are over 20 years old, though I run less critical services on them. My newest machines is about 4 months old. My buddy in the rack next to me is a few servers from the same batch as my 20 year old ones. Obviously the most critical stuff runs on the newest hardware but when you’ve had a machine running uninterrupted for a decade or so why mess with it? Annualized cap ex + the op ex is negligible at this point.

As personal servers of course “critical“ is pretty idiosyncratic, though I have used them to start and host various companies overnthe years until it was worth giving them their “own” hardware and identity.

I admit the age of managing a rack full of servers in a colo has largely passed.

Re: Let's guess what Google requires in 14 days or they kill our extension

#580

Post by PopeDotNinja »

Florin_Andrei wrote: post #193
foobarbazetc wrote: post #131

lol. We have the same problem, but on the Google Play Store. We have an brand name app used by millions of people. We uploaded an update where the only change was a new Firebase library. Google rejected the update for vague reasons (“violation of Google Play policies” but not telling us which one). Appealing the rejection, the CSR just pasted the vague policy thing back at us. We asked for more information and they j…

> No idea what’s going on at Google. It's like trying to troubleshoot a machine learning algorithm.

Now that you mention it, it does sound like an adversarial network!
Post reply on HN