How hucksters are manipulating Google to promote shady Chrome extensions
1–10 of 62 posts
Re: How hucksters are manipulating Google to promote shady Chrome extensions
#2> Apparently, some extension authors figured out that the Chrome Web Store search index is shared across all languages
Oh, you mean like google ads and android app ads? Because both think I'm either Chinese or Korean, despite being neither.
Re: How hucksters are manipulating Google to promote shady Chrome extensions
#3These rogue extensions are "surreptitiously monetizing web searches" - but doesn't Google conspicuously monetize web searches?
So it seems the Google TOS bans competition in search monetization using their "open source" browser. Isn't it odd that an "open source" browser is apparently designed to provide a monopoly on search monetization by the nice people who give it to you for free?
And being 80% or so of all searches: https://www.statista.com/statistics/216573/worldwide-market-...
It seems like Peter Thiel's claim that google is a search advertising monopoly masquerading as a (competitive, non-monopoly) technology company might be spot on.
Re: How hucksters are manipulating Google to promote shady Chrome extensions
#4These rogue extensions are "surreptitiously monetizing web searches" - but doesn't Google conspicuously monetize web searches? So it seems the Google TOS bans competition in search monetization using their "open source" browser. Isn't it odd that an "open source" browser is apparently designed to provide a monopoly on search monetization by the nice people who give it to you for free? And being 80% or so of all searc…
Small info piece: Chrome isn't open source.
Otherwise I agree (even if it means agreeing with Peter Thiel in this case).
Re: How hucksters are manipulating Google to promote shady Chrome extensions
#5These rogue extensions are "surreptitiously monetizing web searches" - but doesn't Google conspicuously monetize web searches? So it seems the Google TOS bans competition in search monetization using their "open source" browser. Isn't it odd that an "open source" browser is apparently designed to provide a monopoly on search monetization by the nice people who give it to you for free? And being 80% or so of all searc…
> Peter Thiel's claim that google is a search advertising monopoly masquerading as a (competitive, non-monopoly) technology company
That's not a very deep insight, it's been pretty obvious since they bought out DoubleClick in 2007.
Re: How hucksters are manipulating Google to promote shady Chrome extensions
#6These rogue extensions are "surreptitiously monetizing web searches" - but doesn't Google conspicuously monetize web searches? So it seems the Google TOS bans competition in search monetization using their "open source" browser. Isn't it odd that an "open source" browser is apparently designed to provide a monopoly on search monetization by the nice people who give it to you for free? And being 80% or so of all searc…
Small info piece: Chrome isn't open source. Otherwise I agree (even if it means agreeing with Peter Thiel in this case).
[deleted]
Re: How hucksters are manipulating Google to promote shady Chrome extensions
#7These rogue extensions are "surreptitiously monetizing web searches" - but doesn't Google conspicuously monetize web searches? So it seems the Google TOS bans competition in search monetization using their "open source" browser. Isn't it odd that an "open source" browser is apparently designed to provide a monopoly on search monetization by the nice people who give it to you for free? And being 80% or so of all searc…
Can you quote the relevant section of the TOS?
Re: How hucksters are manipulating Google to promote shady Chrome extensions
#8These rogue extensions are "surreptitiously monetizing web searches" - but doesn't Google conspicuously monetize web searches? So it seems the Google TOS bans competition in search monetization using their "open source" browser. Isn't it odd that an "open source" browser is apparently designed to provide a monopoly on search monetization by the nice people who give it to you for free? And being 80% or so of all searc…
Can you quote the relevant section of the TOS?
I cannot. I am simply paraphrasing the leading sentence:
"The people overseeing the security of Google’s Chrome browser explicitly forbid third-party extension developers from trying to manipulate how the browser extensions they submit are presented in the Chrome Web Store. "
I assumed that this explicit prohibition would be a "TOS". I could be wrong. Maybe it's somewhere else or called something else.
Re: How hucksters are manipulating Google to promote shady Chrome extensions
#9These rogue extensions are "surreptitiously monetizing web searches" - but doesn't Google conspicuously monetize web searches? So it seems the Google TOS bans competition in search monetization using their "open source" browser. Isn't it odd that an "open source" browser is apparently designed to provide a monopoly on search monetization by the nice people who give it to you for free? And being 80% or so of all searc…
Small info piece: Chrome isn't open source. Otherwise I agree (even if it means agreeing with Peter Thiel in this case).
Well shiver me timbers, if that isn't a hoot.
Maybe my vernacular is off, "source available" ?
ah "licensed freeware"
Re: How hucksters are manipulating Google to promote shady Chrome extensions
#10These rogue extensions are "surreptitiously monetizing web searches" - but doesn't Google conspicuously monetize web searches? So it seems the Google TOS bans competition in search monetization using their "open source" browser. Isn't it odd that an "open source" browser is apparently designed to provide a monopoly on search monetization by the nice people who give it to you for free? And being 80% or so of all searc…
> Peter Thiel's claim that google is a search advertising monopoly masquerading as a (competitive, non-monopoly) technology company That's not a very deep insight, it's been pretty obvious since they bought out DoubleClick in 2007.
I agree, I think it's not a deep insight, but Thiel notes (in his 'zero to one' speech he gave) that Google actively pretends not to be a search advertising monopoly, and instead pretends to be a competitive technology company, in a wide range of technology fields, to "hide" their monopoly.
Thiel is openly advocating monopolies, and says competition is for losers.
I think he's just calling GOOG out for their marketing, and noting their market strategy to deflect attention away from their monopoly.
I, for one, have never heard anyone publicly mention this besides Thiel. Have you?