[anilshanbhag]

I am the developer of Voice In (https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/voice-in-speech-to...), a Chrome extension with 300k+ users. Every month, I have 2-3 folks reach out asking for one of two things:

1) Something something Bing. Here is one from two days ago - https://imgur.com/a/KOwLRIC

2) They want anonymized web browsing data.

Google just yesterday sent out an email cracking down on this. From the email:

To better protect users' browsing experience, the Quality Guideline changes clarify that an extension's purpose is to provide complimentary functionality for the browsing experience and should not seek to hijack a user's browsing or search experience. This update aims to ensure that users have full control over their browsing sessions, without any unwarranted interruptions or manipulations. By enforcing this policy, we strive to foster a safer and more enjoyable environment for all Chrome users, where their trust and satisfaction remain our top priorities. Together, we can create a web ecosystem that respects users' autonomy and offers seamless browsing experiences that truly enhance their lives.

[palant]

Note: I am the author of this article.

Well, Google has been introducing policy changes meant to restrict abuse of extension privileges for quite a while. It won’t help however as long as they don’t manage to enforce the policies effectively. These extensions have been at it for at least two years. It was already against Google’s policies back then. Users flagged these extensions back then already. Yet they remained in Chrome Web Store.

Note that I found one similar extension that was removed in March this year. I have no idea why Google removed it (it cannot be user complains) or why they didn’t search Chrome Web Store for similar code.

[TedDoesntTalk]

Removing extensions used by 55 million users is weighed against the loss of functionality provided by those extensions. Maybe Google just doesn’t want to piss off 55 million users (actually a lot more since, as you say, your list of compromised extensions is not complete)

[palant]

Yes, much better to let 55 million users blame the browser for redirecting search queries, excessive ads, erratic behavior and data leaks. :-)

Funny thing is: I can imagine Google being fine with everything on this list but the first point. When it comes to hijacking search, Google is absolutely no fun.

[userbinator]

Together, we can create a web ecosystem that respects users' autonomy

Maybe 20 years ago I would've believed that coming from Google, but no, it's clear they're going full authoritarian to get users under their control like the rest of Big Tech and using the classic "security" argument to do it.

[f33d5173]

It is quizzical, isn't it? "Pervasive tracking of users goes against their autonomy". But what about when you do it? "We need to be able to keep the lights on, don't we? And anyways, users chose to visit our page, so they consented to any tracking" - how does any of that not apply to extensions the user installs?

[Taywee]

The cognitive dissonance of being a company that makes all its money spying on users, has a profit motivation to prevent others from spying on users, and needing to pretend to take the moral high ground for PR reasons at the same time.

[CyberDildonics]

You are talking about google's hypocrisy, but quizzical actually means mildly amused and not confusing or ironic.

[namaria]

>1) Something something Bing. Here is one from two days ago - https://imgur.com/a/KOwLRIC

What a horrible word soup of toxic corporate speak...

[axus]

Hailey at TechAdsology was right though, it really was a limited time offer

[jacquesm]

I wonder what Bing has to do with it and whether or not MS is even aware of any of this or if it is 'at arms length'. For sure a great way to wreck your reputation, and likely you'll be blacklisted for life.

[NoZebra120vClip]

> complimentary functionality

Did they really spell it that way? No monetization allowed?

[aio2]

I know this is off topic, but nice to meet you famous dev