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

Browser extensions are underrated: the promise of hackable software (2019)

geoffreylitt.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 320 posts

Re: Browser extensions are underrated: the promise of hackable software (2019)

#101

Post by akkartik »

emodendroket wrote: post #95
akkartik wrote: post #86

Just the framing of "browser extensions" is extremely problematic in the year 2024. Most browser extensions by weight are Google Chrome extensions. Google Chrome is unambiguously demonstrating that no API is safe in its quest to juice revenues. Anybody who builds extensions using Chrome's APIs should be very aware that they're quite possibly putting effort into something a juggernaut will stomp away without a second…

> Most browser extensions by weight are Google Chrome extensions. Google Chrome is unambiguously demonstrating that no API is safe in its quest to juice revenues. Anybody who builds extensions using Chrome's APIs should be very aware that they're quite possibly putting effort into something a juggernaut will stomp away without a second thought. How unlike developing for literally any other environment.

I don't know if you're being sarcastic. There's a spectrum between developing for Lua (juggernaut is super friendly), Python (juggernaut is mostly friendly, even if 2->3 caused a lot of casualties), Go (in spite of the corporate backer, quite careful about not stomping) and Chrome.

Yes, there's always a counter-party. My point is it saves a lot of later grief to consider up front the counter-party you're entering into a relationship with. Their incentives and track record.

Re: Browser extensions are underrated: the promise of hackable software (2019)

#102

Post by remram »

Sophira wrote: post #53

> Today, it requires a big jump to go from using browser extensions to creating them: you need to learn a fair amount of web development to get started, and you can’t easily develop extensions in the browser itself. What if there were a quick way to get started developing and sharing extensions in the browser? You could imagine smoothly transitioning from editing a website in the developer tools to publishing a small…

Userscripts are underrated! I use them for all kinds of things, like fixing GitHub's useless landing page (taking me to my repositories instead), make the Mastodon "follow" button work (by hardcoding my instance's domain), block useless results from Google search results (stackshare and the like), redirect from the YouTube "short" view to the normal video video view, remove the stupid whitespace to the right of Gmail's scrollbar, etc.

Re: Browser extensions are underrated: the promise of hackable software (2019)

#103

Post by Animats »

akkartik wrote: post #86

Just the framing of "browser extensions" is extremely problematic in the year 2024. Most browser extensions by weight are Google Chrome extensions. Google Chrome is unambiguously demonstrating that no API is safe in its quest to juice revenues. Anybody who builds extensions using Chrome's APIs should be very aware that they're quite possibly putting effort into something a juggernaut will stomp away without a second…

Most browser extensions seem to be used on Firefox, because Google is so hostile to ones on Chrome. With the decline of Firefox, the extension world has shrunk. I had something called "Ad Limiter" on both Firefox and Chrome for a decade. Identical code, even. Google sent me threatening messages last year, as they tightened the screws on ad blockers, and I dropped it for Chrome.

Re: Browser extensions are underrated: the promise of hackable software (2019)

#104

Post by latchkey »

zubairq wrote: post #60

I think that metamask is an example of a great add on that proves how great browser extensions are. Also, I think that the most popular browser extensions like metamask will eventually become built into every browser

MM terrifies me as an extension. I run it in its own separate browser profile with no other extensions installed. My fear is actually that another extension can hijack MM.

Re: Browser extensions are underrated: the promise of hackable software (2019)

#105

Post by akkartik »

Animats wrote: post #103
akkartik wrote: post #86

Just the framing of "browser extensions" is extremely problematic in the year 2024. Most browser extensions by weight are Google Chrome extensions. Google Chrome is unambiguously demonstrating that no API is safe in its quest to juice revenues. Anybody who builds extensions using Chrome's APIs should be very aware that they're quite possibly putting effort into something a juggernaut will stomp away without a second…

Most browser extensions seem to be used on Firefox, because Google is so hostile to ones on Chrome. With the decline of Firefox, the extension world has shrunk. I had something called "Ad Limiter" on both Firefox and Chrome for a decade. Identical code, even. Google sent me threatening messages last year, as they tightened the screws on ad blockers, and I dropped it for Chrome.

That's a good point. Perhaps Firefox will benefit from an embrace/extinguish maneuver for once. Become compatible with Chrome extensions, then take over the space as Google retreats. This path too passes through no longer referring to "browser extensions".

Re: Browser extensions are underrated: the promise of hackable software (2019)

#106

Post by narag »

Qui prodest is the question you must ask when you hear the usual points against, mostly security. It's not that every person that dislike extensions or repeat the same arguments is paid by "them", but it's a little shocking seeing so many negative opinions in a forum called Hacker News.

This comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39251996 by Retr0id hits the nail in the head. It's not that we cannot modify the software, but there are so many layers of inconvenience... what about modifying and recompiling the browsers themselves? They're so big now. The solution would be extensions. But no. Security.

Re: Browser extensions are underrated: the promise of hackable software (2019)

#107

Post by foobiekr »

akkartik wrote: post #86

Just the framing of "browser extensions" is extremely problematic in the year 2024. Most browser extensions by weight are Google Chrome extensions. Google Chrome is unambiguously demonstrating that no API is safe in its quest to juice revenues. Anybody who builds extensions using Chrome's APIs should be very aware that they're quite possibly putting effort into something a juggernaut will stomp away without a second…

Forget all that.

1. They increase the attack surface of the browser 2. They have routinely been transferred to (for money) or taken over by malicious entities 3. Often they subtly break things in ways that are fine for expert users but which result in support reach out by others

The whole extension thing is a mess.

Re: Browser extensions are underrated: the promise of hackable software (2019)

#108

Post by Animats »

akkartik wrote: post #105
Animats wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most browser extensions seem to be used on Firefox, because Google is so hostile to ones on Chrome. With the decline of Firefox, the extension world has shrunk. I had something called "Ad Limiter" on both Firefox and Chrome for a decade. Identical code, even. Google sent me threatening messages last year, as they tightened the screws on ad blockers, and I dropped it for Chrome.

That's a good point. Perhaps Firefox will benefit from an embrace/extinguish maneuver for once. Become compatible with Chrome extensions, then take over the space as Google retreats. This path too passes through no longer referring to "browser extensions".

Extensions were compatible for years until Google changed the manifest format and parts of the API.

Re: Browser extensions are underrated: the promise of hackable software (2019)

#109

Post by foobiekr »

jwells89 wrote: post #42
throwaway63467 wrote: post #24

Many popular browser extensions were bought up by data brokers that use them to exfiltrate browser history, so not sure if they’re underrated, I think you have to be pretty careful as the extension security/privacy model is/was pretty awful. I e.g. know screenshotting extensions (Awesome Screenshot) that would vacuum up your browser history and send it to a data broker in Israel. So probably better to have that as a…

Yes. Because of this and the lack of fine-grained permissions mentioned by a sibling comment, I tend to use desktop apps where I can instead of extensions, keeping my extensions list quite slim — basically all I install are FOSS extensions by “big” known-good authors (e.g. Raymond Hill) or projects that aren’t going to sell out. Of course risks exist with desktop apps too, but historically this kind of buy-and-exfilt…

It's not the lack of a fine grained permissions model, it's the total lack of a real threat model and any consideration at all for what happens as extensions change over time.

Re: Browser extensions are underrated: the promise of hackable software (2019)

#110

Post by mnau »

lapcat wrote: post #92
mnau wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I will leave this as a gallery of emails with offers to buy extension hoverzoom: https://github.com/extesy/hoverzoom/discussions/670 Sidenote: The "collaboration" offers come from time to time even to non-extensions projects, if they are reasonably widely used. E.g. simple tools (rather widely used suite of android apps recently sold).

"Your real profit per day will be $ 9000." LOL

I believe the profit number, even the number of lines > 8 lines of code in the manifest of your extension.

As long as they are lines [like ones used to collect card info](https://www.theregister.com/2018/09/11/british_airways_websi...) from British Airways (supply chain attack).

For how many days will profit be collected is the question (plus the fun criminal investigation).

Post reply on HN