Chrome, 10 Years Later • Hacker News Board

Re: Chrome, 10 Years Later

#171

Post by matheusmoreira » Sun, Dec 11, 2022, 2:47 AM UTC

namrog84 wrote: post #170

matheusmoreira wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The changes in Manifest v3 make a lot of sense. It's absolutely true that we can't trust extensions or their developers and they should be restricted as much as possible. Forcing them to declare to the browser what they want done so that only the browser touches the user's private information is a great idea. It's just that certain extensions are so important and trusted that it doesn't make sense to restrict them li…

Who decides who gets special extensions! Can I make a unlock origin compete and get special permissions? (Then sell my extension later to a shady person)? Its tough to manage exceptions like that

> Then sell my extension later to a shady person

The only person I'd trust not to do that is gorhill. I don't trust any other extension or their authors.

> Its tough to manage exceptions like that

Then don't manage them. Deny everyone except gorhill. There is literally one exception: uBlock Origin. No further exceptions need be made.

Re: Chrome, 10 Years Later

#172

Post by culi » Sun, Dec 11, 2022, 3:26 AM UTC

encryptluks2 wrote: post #169

culi wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. It used to be on the Chrome Extensions page. It wouldn't let you download the extension and had a big "malware" flag on it. I don't think that's up still but there's articles written about it: https://www.theregister.com/2017/01/05/adnauseam_expelled_fr...

Yeah, I saw that one but other stories around the same time say something different. Were you able to find an arhive.org page that actually shows the extension listed as malware?

I don't even know what URL I'd have to put in archive.org to find it, but I'm telling you I saw it myself when it first happened. I had it installed and Google uninstalled it for me and told me it was malware

What do "other stories" say about it? I'm seeing multiple articles confirming the same thing. Not sure why you find this so hard to believe...

Re: Chrome, 10 Years Later

#173

Post by Vinnl » Sun, Dec 11, 2022, 5:50 PM UTC

amake wrote: post #91

Vinnl wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Heh, that's this article I presume: https://techcrunch.com/2009/08/05/chromes-new-feature-click-... That is indeed hilarious.

Yes, the very one linked from the article itself.

Ah, I'd already read the article in my feed reader before seeing it on HN, and hadn't followed the link back then, sorry.

Re: Chrome, 10 Years Later

#174

Post by readthenotes1 » Mon, Dec 12, 2022, 8:36 AM UTC

"Everybody hates ads"

Wrong.

I don't remember being disturbed by advertisements in the magazines are read, and even in some of the books I read, nor in the print newspapers.

What I hate are advertisements that attack me: vectors for viruses, assault me with noises when I am reading, suddenly block the page I am viewing.

If Web advertisers treated their audience better, I suspect there would be a lot fewer installations of uBlock origin

Re: Chrome, 10 Years Later

#175

Post by BizarroLand » Mon, Dec 12, 2022, 7:15 PM UTC

loudmax wrote: post #126

erfgh wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not what a free market is. A free market is merely one that is not regulated by the state. Stop perpetuating this strawman please.

This is true in just the same way that a free society would have no have no government at all. No taxes, no laws, no police or judiciary, just complete freedom to do whatever you want to your neighbors. Ayn Rand's utopia. I wouldn't want to live there.

It's almost as if the people who think absolute capitalistic libertarianism is a good idea always think that they'll be on the good side of it and get to reap the benefits of being a monarchical overlord and not the bad side of it where their organs are being sold overseas for a week's worth of food credits for the rest of their starving family.