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

731–740 of 811 posts

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

#731

Post by katzgrau »

I have an app that was falsely flagged as malvertising by Google Ad Manager. Also got a generic message with no insight into the specific problem.

It was only because I had a point of contact at Google with actual influence that I was able to resolve the issue (and they did, miraculously). If you don't know a human, Google's automated systems can more or less destroy your app or business for Google product users, which is pretty much everybody. G is a big, multi-headed beast. Not evil, but worse - indifferent.

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

#732

Post by kuschku »

saurik wrote: post #677
dilandau wrote: post #530

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's so difficult to imagine a) getting ahold of someone at Google who can actually help you, and b) having some sense of assurance that they will actually help you. "Google deleted my X" posts always rise to the top on HN because they elicit a strong emotional response from developers. I think it's worthwhile to reflect on why that happens. For me, it's because I absolutely despise seeing an algorithm have control o…

I don't understand how people work for these companies as developers and implement these policies and systems and aren't just as angry about it and don't stand up to their supervisors over it: if frankly makes me have a really low opinion of people who work for Google, Apple, etc. :/.

The interview process is made intentionally annoying so people self-select towards only obeying marionettes actually applying for the job.

As result, you get a whole company of yes-men who have no spine.

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

#733

Post by brosirmandude »

geofft wrote: post #403

Uh, yikes: > As I looked at the permissions and what our extension actually needs to operate, I noticed a great opportunity to reduce our permissions requests. We do not need to request access to data on https://*/* and http://*/* . Instead, we can simply request data access for https://*.pushbullet.com/* , http://*.pushbullet.com/* , and http://localhost/* . This is a huge reduction in the private data our extension…

>if you have an approved extension with https://*/* permissions and active users, malware authors will offer to buy your extension for a very high price.

This is interesting, and I didn't realize this was a thing.

Are there any lists of extensions with these permissions, or ways that as an average consumer could easily audit my list of extensions for this?

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

#734

Post by IG_Semmelweiss »

cwhiz wrote: post #238
WrtCdEvrydy wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have written about this recently on the Android side. https://medium.com/@lazherrera/that-one-time-google-made-it-... If you use any of the words related to the COVID-19 pandemic, they will pull your app, suspend you and ding your account.

Google has effectively created a private monopoly on any Android applications related to Covid-19. And the last time this sort of information was posted to HN the comments section was a race to see who could do the best apology for Google. This policy by Google is hurting people and businesses. Meanwhile, Apple has a similar policy but all they do is just take extra care when reviewing your app. I suggest you port yo…

A monopoly is the only logical path to take when, you know...they go around claiming they know nothing about an app to support the US govt .../s

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

#735

Post by znpy »

wbl wrote: post #710
choult wrote: post #693

Earlier quoted context omitted.

... so you're upset that you didn't get a service for free?

If you're serious about spending a lot on the cloud it's reasonable to expect a taste. Just like an ice cream store.

the free tier is for that, isn't it ?

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

#736

Post by Wowfunhappy »

shkkmo wrote: post #729
Wowfunhappy wrote: post #719

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was ready to get behind this line of reasoning, but then I thought about e.g. comment sections. Anyone who has moderated a forum will know that trolls find every possible way to walk right up to the line without technically crossing it. If you say "personal attacks aren't allowed", they'll say "I wasn't attacking him personally, I just suggested that anyone who says [the thing he said] should consider getting evalu…

> If you say "personal attacks aren't allowed", they'll say "but I wasn't attacking him personally, I just suggested that anyone who says [the thing he said] should consider getting evaluated by a doctor for mental retardation." 1) That pretty clearly qualifies as a personal attack 2) There is a significant difference between a forum and a business critical software distribution platform.

> That pretty clearly qualifies as a personal attack

Okay, let's take the obscurity up one level: I used to moderate a very small internet forum, where there was one user who had certain mannerisms in his writing. I also had reason to suspect this user was mildly suicidal.

A troll began to mimic these mannerisms as a way to make fun of that user, and talk about how horrible their life was. The troll wasn't overt about it, but if you knew the history between these two, you could tell what was going on. The troll of course feigned innocence, but as he'd been given warnings before, I made the call to ban him.

I firmly believe I was acting within the forum's stated policies—but I am not 100% confident a judge would agree. If these types of actions could lead to lawsuits, I don't know what I would have done.

---

> There is a significant difference between a forum and a business critical software distribution platform.

Great—but where's the line? Is Youtube critical, for example?

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

#737

Post by andyrichardson »

seanwilson wrote: post #84

For people focusing their comments on this particular extension + the permissions it asks for, please take a quick look at the numerous recent posts in the official forum for Chrome extension developers to see it's not an isolated issue: https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!forum/chrom... It's a systematic issue that isn't specific to anything Pushbullet is doing and it's been like this before the pandemi…

I want to share my opinion on this as it's something that I've spent a lot of time thinking and talking to the Chrome Web Store team about.

The very core of the issue here is less about the manual review process (although that sucks) and more about how the review process is necessary due to how extension permissions work in browsers to-date. The current process works similar to how Android and IOS permissions worked back in the day by requiring the user to grant all permissions up front (equivalent to giving an extension sudo permission to your browser).

The feedback you'll most likely get from Google on this isue is that the solution to this is to narrow down what URLs your extension works on... but that comes with a pretty big assumption that an extension can declare that information up front. Many extensions (including developer tooling) don't need to run on EVERY page - they need to run on specific pages where some extension-specific code is running (this is the case with Urql, Preact, React, Rexux devtools). Narrowing down by URL just isn't possible and an ad-hoc solution where extension-specific code on the webpage can trigger permission requests (similar to how a website requests access to your camera) is needed.

I've written up a proposal for this case which I think addresses 90% of use cases where "sudo permissions" are being requested up front and in reality, could be requested on an ad-hoc basis. Whether it's an agreement or some criticism, anyone who is able to get involved in this discussion - please do! Every other platform is using ad-hoc permissions and we need to push for the same with browser extensions.

Here's the proposal: https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!topic/chrom...

Here's my rant on Twitter about this problem (see retweeted comment): https://twitter.com/andyrichardsonn/status/12529205656960040...

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

#738

Post by maaarghk »

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #736
shkkmo wrote: post #729

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you say "personal attacks aren't allowed", they'll say "but I wasn't attacking him personally, I just suggested that anyone who says [the thing he said] should consider getting evaluated by a doctor for mental retardation." 1) That pretty clearly qualifies as a personal attack 2) There is a significant difference between a forum and a business critical software distribution platform.

> That pretty clearly qualifies as a personal attack Okay, let's take the obscurity up one level: I used to moderate a very small internet forum, where there was one user who had certain mannerisms in his writing. I also had reason to suspect this user was mildly suicidal. A troll began to mimic these mannerisms as a way to make fun of that user, and talk about how horrible their life was. The troll wasn't overt abou…

It would be common enough to have laws that say only businesses of a certain size are fully obliged to comply. GDPR has this for some clauses, for example. I guess the idea is along the lines of the market determines whether you're critical by letting you become a huge company?

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

#739

Post by andyrichardson »

wtetzner wrote: post #551
seanwilson wrote: post #84

For people focusing their comments on this particular extension + the permissions it asks for, please take a quick look at the numerous recent posts in the official forum for Chrome extension developers to see it's not an isolated issue: https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!forum/chrom... It's a systematic issue that isn't specific to anything Pushbullet is doing and it's been like this before the pandemi…

I guess the solution is to stop using Chrome.

I blamed the Chrome Web Store team at first but I can understand why they're anxious about allowing extensions onto the store which basically access everything on your browser.

The issue is the outdated permission spec for browser extensions (I've gone into more detail on another comment on this thread)

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

#740

Post by tams »

znpy wrote: post #735
wbl wrote: post #710

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're serious about spending a lot on the cloud it's reasonable to expect a taste. Just like an ice cream store.

the free tier is for that, isn't it ?

You don't get much in terms of performance and capacity in the free tier preventing you from testing anything beyond the tiniest workloads.

If you need to pre-arrange expenses with the finance department, it's much faster to test drive with credits.

Post reply on HN