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

Google blocked my Chrome extension so I created a website to host it

extensionhub.site

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 105 posts

Re: Google blocked my Chrome extension so I created a website to host it

#91

Post by vorpalhex »

kube-system wrote: post #65
stickfigure wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...and if they post their content to the public, the public can read it. Giving content to journalists is not the same as giving your content to Google to index in their search engine and caches. The later is not private.

Journalists post quotes and snippets, just as Google does. Not that it matters. Just because I gave something to someone else for free, doesn't mean I have to give it to you. The idea that a single public exhibition of a work is enough to invalidate any future sale of that work is totally silly. Are you gonna bust out the window of a Barnes & Noble because libraries exist?

Google reproduces the entire page it searches. This is not some oversight or hidden secret - it is how it works.

Re: Google blocked my Chrome extension so I created a website to host it

#93

Post by robertlagrant »

thayne wrote: post #82
robertlagrant wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the bait and switch involved?

The content is available to search engines, and they are highly optimized for SEO, so they show up high in search results. So users expect by clicking the link in the search result they can see the rest of the content. Then you get hit with a paywall.

A third party that indexes the content for searchability and shows too much of it to its users is not bait and switch. Come on.

Re: Google blocked my Chrome extension so I created a website to host it

#94

Post by IncRnd »

TekMol wrote: post #44

From the description, it sounds like this extension just puts " https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache :" in front of the current url? If so, you can also do this via a simple bookmarklet: javascript:location.href='https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:'+location.href;{} If you don't know what bookmarklets are: Edit any old bookmark and put the above line into the url field. Next time y…

I do similar but use javascript:window.location.href="https://archive.is/newest/"+location.href for pulling from archive.is. That works for many pages.

Re: Google blocked my Chrome extension so I created a website to host it

#95

Post by somehnacct3757 »

kierenj wrote: post #6

Are there any security implications to enabling developer mode?

You will bypass the permission auth dialog, which is your last official chance to see what the code you're about to execute has access to.

The extension developer could add a malicious permission + new code to exploit it and it would look the same as using developer mode to add a Hello World extension

Re: Google blocked my Chrome extension so I created a website to host it

#96

Post by ThunderSizzle »

jayass wrote: post #9
kierenj wrote: post #6

Are there any security implications to enabling developer mode?

Well, yes and no. By enabling the developer mode you can install any extension that was not verified by the google web store policy. As long you are careful with the extension you install manually you should be fine.

Is there necessarily any more danger than installing a random exe from the internet on a typical Windows admin account with UAC turned off?

e.g. from https://windirstat.net/download.html

Re: Google blocked my Chrome extension so I created a website to host it

#97

Post by geysersam »

vorpalhex wrote: post #89
geysersam wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're doing something bad - so it's okay to steal their stuff. Did I get that right?

They are being gamed by their own game. Nobody took their content - they submitted it to search engines and are upset the search engine provides a cached copy. If they don't like it they can not submit to search engines.

> nobody took their content

According to the law, someone did.

Just because something's available on request from a server does not mean it's up for grabs.

Re: Google blocked my Chrome extension so I created a website to host it

#98

Post by vorpalhex »

robertlagrant wrote: post #93
thayne wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The content is available to search engines, and they are highly optimized for SEO, so they show up high in search results. So users expect by clicking the link in the search result they can see the rest of the content. Then you get hit with a paywall.

A third party that indexes the content for searchability and shows too much of it to its users is not bait and switch. Come on.

That is the deal of being indexed. That which you share to the indexer is shared to the world.

Re: Google blocked my Chrome extension so I created a website to host it

#99

Post by vorpalhex »

geysersam wrote: post #97
vorpalhex wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are being gamed by their own game. Nobody took their content - they submitted it to search engines and are upset the search engine provides a cached copy. If they don't like it they can not submit to search engines.

> nobody took their content According to the law, someone did. Just because something's available on request from a server does not mean it's up for grabs.

> Just because something's available on request from a server does not mean it's up for grabs.

When you give the content out for free to the indexer, you have given a copy to the world. Google search is not your advertising machine - you can pay for that priviledge if you would care for it.

Re: Google blocked my Chrome extension so I created a website to host it

#100

Post by thayne »

robertlagrant wrote: post #93
thayne wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The content is available to search engines, and they are highly optimized for SEO, so they show up high in search results. So users expect by clicking the link in the search result they can see the rest of the content. Then you get hit with a paywall.

A third party that indexes the content for searchability and shows too much of it to its users is not bait and switch. Come on.

The news sites return different content to search engines than they do to browsers. Which means you get a different site than what is shown in the search preview, specifically a paywall page.

I would be a lot less annoyed with these paywalls if they didn't rank so highly on search results, or at the very least indicated they were paywalled on the search page and were easy to filter out.

Post reply on HN