5 ms·

If you just search for any legitimate extension, you find so much junk. One well-known example: Search for uBlock Origin and you will find a sketchy one name "u

If you just search for any legitimate extension, you find so much junk. One well-known example: Search for uBlock Origin and you will find a sketchy one name "uBlock." This seems something super easy to fix, but Google already has problems with apps on the Play Store, so not sure if I expect much better on the Web Store.

kevingadd 6y ago
Solving the problem of shady extensions impersonating real extensions is pretty tricky. You could require trademark registration or something like that, or go with a first-come-first-serve policy, but those are both trivially exploited and raise the barrier to entry for small developers. The best you could do is just employ a bunch of very skilled review staff to look over individual extensions and try to figure out whether they are sketchy, but that is a difficult problem. On the iOS and Android app stores, a not-uncommon problem is that shady actors will claim the name of an upcoming app or game before it releases on the store, which makes it hard for the actual product to get added when it launches. In some cases this has forced a developer to rename their title.
- jneplokh 6y ago
  I do not have much experience, with app/extension regulation of course, but I can imagine how it can get extremely difficult. Especially when you have so many users and developers. Even Apple's $99 fee does not prevent a ton of shady apps. > shady actors will claim the name of an upcoming app Huh, never heard of this. Do you have any links/readings about that?
  - kevingadd 6y ago
    https://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/316145/IGF_Awardwinning_Baba_Is_You_cloned_before_it_was_even_released.php https://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/316145/IGF_Awardwinning_... Another story I don't have an easily accessible news link for: A chinese game studio launched US and Japanese versions of their title, and their original Japanese business partner registered the trademark themselves and tried to extort them with it. In the end they found a new partner and renamed the title (so it has a unique Japan-only name separate from the name used in other regions)
    - jneplokh 6y ago
      Interesting, thanks for sharing. I saw a tweet the other day about tricks to get around an app having the same name. Seems to be a somewhat common struggle.
- forgotmypw17 6y ago
  f-droid seems to manage, somehow, even as a volunteer effort...
jefftk 6y ago
It's complicated: uBlock is the original extension, and uBlock Origin is a fork by the original lead developer. At this point, uBlock is sketchy while uBlock Origin is well respected, but it seems hard to come up with a rule that would justify banning uBlock?
- jneplokh 6y ago
  Oh, never knew. Learn something everyday! Regarding the question, I do not know either. I guess a lot of it falls on the user, and not much can be done about that. Perhaps something like Mozilla's recommended extensions program (Apple already has to approve apps, so vetting is applied to Safari extensions, too) could be applied to the Chrome Web Store?
- Dylan16807 6y ago
  Google doesn't have to allow all transfers of extensions between different groups. The behavior of the new owner could have justified transferring it back.
  - jefftk 6y ago
    Transferring it back from AdBlock to Chris Aljoudi? Or from Chris Aljoudi to Raymond Hill?
    - Dylan16807 6y ago
      Did AdBlock immediately do anything that wasn't intended to be authorized by Chris? I meant the latter.
      - jefftk 6y ago
        As far as I can tell, Chris didn't immediately do anything that would have justified transferring it back either. Raymond was sick of dealing with low quality support requests, and so transferred the project to Chris. Over time, Raymond didn't like the direction Chris was taking the project, however, and started recommending his uBlock Origin fork for general consumption. More context on how things were around the time of the initial transfer: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/issues/38#issuecomment-91871802 https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/issues/38#issuecomment-918...

kevingadd 6y ago

Solving the problem of shady extensions impersonating real extensions is pretty tricky. You could require trademark registration or something like that, or go with a first-come-first-serve policy, but those are both trivially exploited and raise the barrier to entry for small developers. The best you could do is just employ a bunch of very skilled review staff to look over individual extensions and try to figure out whether they are sketchy, but that is a difficult problem. On the iOS and Android app stores, a not-uncommon problem is that shady actors will claim the name of an upcoming app or game before it releases on the store, which makes it hard for the actual product to get added when it launches. In some cases this has forced a developer to rename their title.

jneplokh 6y ago
I do not have much experience, with app/extension regulation of course, but I can imagine how it can get extremely difficult. Especially when you have so many users and developers. Even Apple's $99 fee does not prevent a ton of shady apps. > shady actors will claim the name of an upcoming app Huh, never heard of this. Do you have any links/readings about that?
- kevingadd 6y ago
  https://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/316145/IGF_Awardwinning_Baba_Is_You_cloned_before_it_was_even_released.php https://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/316145/IGF_Awardwinning_... Another story I don't have an easily accessible news link for: A chinese game studio launched US and Japanese versions of their title, and their original Japanese business partner registered the trademark themselves and tried to extort them with it. In the end they found a new partner and renamed the title (so it has a unique Japan-only name separate from the name used in other regions)
  - jneplokh 6y ago
    Interesting, thanks for sharing. I saw a tweet the other day about tricks to get around an app having the same name. Seems to be a somewhat common struggle.
forgotmypw17 6y ago
f-droid seems to manage, somehow, even as a volunteer effort...

jefftk 6y ago

It's complicated: uBlock is the original extension, and uBlock Origin is a fork by the original lead developer. At this point, uBlock is sketchy while uBlock Origin is well respected, but it seems hard to come up with a rule that would justify banning uBlock?

jneplokh 6y ago
Oh, never knew. Learn something everyday! Regarding the question, I do not know either. I guess a lot of it falls on the user, and not much can be done about that. Perhaps something like Mozilla's recommended extensions program (Apple already has to approve apps, so vetting is applied to Safari extensions, too) could be applied to the Chrome Web Store?
Dylan16807 6y ago
Google doesn't have to allow all transfers of extensions between different groups. The behavior of the new owner could have justified transferring it back.
- jefftk 6y ago
  Transferring it back from AdBlock to Chris Aljoudi? Or from Chris Aljoudi to Raymond Hill?
  - Dylan16807 6y ago
    Did AdBlock immediately do anything that wasn't intended to be authorized by Chris? I meant the latter.
    - jefftk 6y ago
      As far as I can tell, Chris didn't immediately do anything that would have justified transferring it back either. Raymond was sick of dealing with low quality support requests, and so transferred the project to Chris. Over time, Raymond didn't like the direction Chris was taking the project, however, and started recommending his uBlock Origin fork for general consumption. More context on how things were around the time of the initial transfer: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/issues/38#issuecomment-91871802 https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/issues/38#issuecomment-918...