Unable to deal with Chrome Extension Team, Kozmos is shutting down • Hacker News Board

Re: Unable to deal with Chrome Extension Team, Kozmos is shutting down

#291

Post by syshum » Sat, May 23, 2020, 11:12 PM UTC

paulryanrogers wrote: post #75

jjoonathan wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gaslighting is the worst. It's getting more common, too. Just the other day I found out that posting links in a youtube comment makes the comment invisible to everyone else. In hindsight, disallowing links is almost certainly a good policy and it's easy to understand and appreciate why it was put in place, but why the gaslighting? Just pop up a box explaining that links aren't allowed. The gaslighting isn't going to…

I think the term is shadow banning

They invented the term shadow banning because "gas lighting" has very negative connotations.

Shadow banning is 100% a form of gas lighting, and IMO should be considered just as unethical. If you are going to ban someone, words, or actions be upfront and clear about the rules and bans

Re: Unable to deal with Chrome Extension Team, Kozmos is shutting down

#292

Post by michaelcampbell » Sat, May 23, 2020, 11:12 PM UTC

sillysaurusx wrote: post #280

roadbeats wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> With leftpad he told Kik, "fuck you" In response to a threat starting with "We don’t mean to be a dick about it" and ending with "our trademark lawyers are going to be banging on your door and taking down your accounts and stuff like that", I did say "fuck you" to Kik. If that makes me the character in your mind, enjoy your imagination.

I just wanted to say, thanks for standing up for what you believe in. It took courage to do what you did.

Did it though? This seems to be his MO.

Re: Unable to deal with Chrome Extension Team, Kozmos is shutting down

#293

Post by microcolonel » Sat, May 23, 2020, 11:14 PM UTC

Aeolun wrote: post #193

microcolonel wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The odd thing is that they can't even make a cost argument for this. If they charged a cost recovery fee for human redress of these sorts of issues, it would not cost them anything, and that's assuming they don't lose money from improper automated enforcement, which they almost certainly do. It's pure incompetence.

Why would I want to keep paying google for their shitty AI’s mistakes?

The alternative is being disappeared without recourse, if you have to pay 40 bucks when they screw up, it is what it is, and you can make a decision.

Re: Unable to deal with Chrome Extension Team, Kozmos is shutting down

#294

Post by egeozcan » Sat, May 23, 2020, 11:14 PM UTC

bufferoverflow wrote: post #290

babesh wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This feels like 1994 all over again. In 1994 you had one dominant software monopoly in Microsoft. Today you have several: Microsoft, Google, Apple, Facebook with dominance in individual spheres of influence. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

In 1994 Microsoft didn't arbitrarily ban applications on their OS.

Also, as far as I know, even couldn't.

Re: Unable to deal with Chrome Extension Team, Kozmos is shutting down

#295

Post by Red_Leaves_Flyy » Sat, May 23, 2020, 11:15 PM UTC

orbital223 wrote: post #231

victorhooi wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're referring to the recent controversy around Pushbullet - I thought that was revealed to be them asking for all access to any HTTP/HTTPS websites you viewed...which is a major security breach. They removed that permission to limit it to only Pushbullet, and then were able to get back on. I'm not saying there couldn't have been more hand-holding - but it wasn't exactly like it wasn't for a fairly egregious sec…

They removed that permission and were denied again. Only after the story got a lot of publicity did Google decide to accept it.

Did PB fall through the cavernous CS cracks or are they competition?

Re: Unable to deal with Chrome Extension Team, Kozmos is shutting down

#296

Post by ianwalter » Sat, May 23, 2020, 11:16 PM UTC

It's a shame that so many of the comments have to do with left-pad. Kozmos was a great piece of software and I will miss it even though I haven't used it in a while. It came very close to how I personally think a bookmarking service should work, which is pretty incredible for something made by a single person. Seems like a lot of people have been complaining about the Chrome extension store lately. I wonder what's going on behind the scenes there. Anyway, looking forward to your next project Azer.

Re: Unable to deal with Chrome Extension Team, Kozmos is shutting down

#297

Post by throwphoton » Sat, May 23, 2020, 11:16 PM UTC

dspillett wrote: post #261

CathedralBorrow wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What was the "other side" of leftpad? As far as I remember, the broken system wrought havoc, not the developer who chose to withdraw his modules. I don't think the developer's reasons are much relevant when discussing how reliable their word is.

The broken system allowed him to be a dick. OK, so the is more to it than that and he did have a genuine grievance (I forgot exactly what) bit in dealing with that he caused a pile collateral damage for innocent bystanders. (Innocent bystanders who errantly put too much faith in dependency oriented programming which brings us back to the broken system)

> too much faith in dependency oriented programming

Which is why it's a distraction to even consider this particular person's track record.

Even if this same person pulled one critical package a month for the next year, the fundamental problem is still that the ecosystem in general relies on parties with no obligations to manage critical dependencies.

Re: Unable to deal with Chrome Extension Team, Kozmos is shutting down

#298

Post by monadic2 » Sat, May 23, 2020, 11:16 PM UTC

lonelappde wrote: post #205

georgeecollins wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The other explanation is that they don't really want users to have most browser extensions. The browser extensions either become features that google wants to embed in the browser, or things they don't want, for business reasons. In either case it is better if the extension dies after a year or so. BTW, this doesn't have to be a conscious choice of anyone at Google, it could just be the way the incentives turn out.

User friendly features are only incentivized in a competitive environment. Until Firefox or Edge catches up in both performance and implementation compatibility to make Chrome-first sites work, extension support isn't incentivized

Tbh I can’t even think of a place where competition solves user-friendliness—user friendly software is highly uncommon in commercial software, let alone more broadly (i’m eying you, canonical).

There are a large number of user-hostile behaviors that stretch across industries: ad-funded software, app stores pushing microtransactions, wildly inconsistent interfaces and behaviors across DOM-driven software, opt-out behavior for things like arbitrary internet access.... user unfriendliness is the default state of software and even the most user friendly software still neglects the needs of many of their potential users.

This is a fact of software built in bounded time to be resold for passive income and “support” (which means “bug explainer” and possibly “refund-giver” in most corporate cultures).

Re: Unable to deal with Chrome Extension Team, Kozmos is shutting down

#299

Post by libria » Sat, May 23, 2020, 11:18 PM UTC

xg15 wrote: post #141

Old and busted: Google unexpectedly cancelling their products. New hotness: Google unexpectedly cancelling other peoples' products.

Weird. My mind automatically pictures this in the Drake and Distracted Boyfriend memes, which is the reverse purpose of what memes were designed for. Repetition is powerful.

Re: Unable to deal with Chrome Extension Team, Kozmos is shutting down

#300

Post by pvg » Sat, May 23, 2020, 11:21 PM UTC

alias_neo wrote: post #266

victorhooi wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're referring to the recent controversy around Pushbullet - I thought that was revealed to be them asking for all access to any HTTP/HTTPS websites you viewed...which is a major security breach. They removed that permission to limit it to only Pushbullet, and then were able to get back on. I'm not saying there couldn't have been more hand-holding - but it wasn't exactly like it wasn't for a fairly egregious sec…

I believe Pushbullet needed it's permissions for the features it offered, they even tried removing features and permissions just to appease Google. Regardless of that, just tell people what they've done wrong, developers are surely jaded by being told absolutely nothing about what or why some faceless mega corp is trampling all over their day. Is it any wonder people like OP lash out in frustration and just pull all…

I believe Pushbullet needed it's permissions for the features it offered

The PB post describes them removing permissions they realized they didn't need, you can check their writeup. Google's handling of this was poor but PB had real problems.

In this extension's case, we haven't even seen what notices Google sent.