[stevenh]

Why does Google bother with so many minor script-related security enhancements in Chrome that will barely affect anyone (such as extra HTTP headers allowing for bonus layers of XSS protection just in case the site's developers weren't smart enough to cover all possible injection angles) if they are going to also let random untrustworthy developers abuse their extension installation API to achieve over 750,000 installs of a mysterious/shady/useless browser extension that inexplicably asks for permission to read and write to the DOM on every single page of every single site the user ever visits in the future, and which very obviously only exists for the purpose of doing the exact same kinds of terrible things that XSS prevention was conceived of in the first place in order to stop?

[Benferhat]

I'd like to hear arguments for why it would be unfair competition for Google to put spammy ad agencies out of business.

[TeMPOraL]

I'd personally love them to do that. I guess the arguments are basically the double-edged sword of dictatorship. You have a paradise if the ruler is wise, just and benevolent, as you can escape pretty much all of the stupid coordination problems that pester democracies - but on the other hand you risk getting totally screwed up if the dictator goes evil (which can, and probably always will, happen over time, when a good dictator gets succeeded by a bad one).

[benologist]

Microsoft takes out spammers.

- http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-12772319

- http://money.cnn.com/2012/03/26/technology/microsoft-raid/

- http://www.allspammedup.com/2013/06/microsoft-and-fbi-take-d...

Facebook sues spammers:

- http://www.theverge.com/2014/10/3/6901293/facebook-has-sued-...

[dvanduzer]

Thanks for all the evidence, but Microsoft's primary revenue stream isn't advertising, and Facebook is getting success by suing spammers that commit fraud against Facebook.