[blablablame]

Because something something, DO NO EVIL, something something.

Seriously, Google is as bad as every other tech company, but for some reason, when they do shit like this, people tend to over look it (not sure if because a lot of folks directly or indirectly have their livelihoods connected to Google properties or what not)

[andybak]

I'm rather baffled as to the sinister narrative you're attempting to construct here.

(I sometimes worry I come across as a Google apologist. I suppose I am in a devil's advocate sense. It's not that I think Google is a shining beacon of decency. It's just that the quality of anti-Google thinking on HN is so low I find it difficult to let it pass. If you could all step up your game somewhat then I can stop chiming in).

[soylentcola]

I notice the same thing. As far as the Flash thing, I'd imagine it's a matter of trying to balance the desire to wean people off of using insecure plugins while minimizing complaints. Certainly not "fair" to give some a pass and not others but at the same time, if (made up number) 95% of non-sketchy Flash usage takes place on ten sites, you can weed out a huge swath of exploit problems while minimizing hassle as you wait for the top 10 to move away from Flash as well.

It's an imperfect solution to be sure. But in these situations (officially ending support for WinXP/IE6, ending support for some plugin, etc) there is no perfect one. There needs to be some motivation to get users and websites to move on from Flash but there's also consideration for breaking commonly used services.