Google Threatens To Delist Chrome Extensions Installed by Deceptive Tactics

Google is cracking down again on deceptive Chrome extension installation practices. The browser maker listed new rules yesterday that extension developers must follow, or face the possibility of having their extension removed from the official Chrome Web Store. From a report: These new rules come after last year Google banned the installation of Chrome extensions via third-party sites (called inline installs) and limited the installation process to users visiting the extension's official Chrome Web Store page only. [...] But yesterday, Google announced plans to remove all Chrome extensions that abuse the following tactics to trick users towards pressing the "Add to Chrome" button: 1. Extensions that lack a clear "disclosure" that explains to users what they can expect by installing the Chrome extension. 2. Extensions that use misleading disclosures or explanations for the extension's purpose. 3. Hiding disclosure texts (extension's purpose) in large blocks of text, down the page, or using text and fonts that make the disclosure unreadable. 4. Using misleading interactive elements (such as buttons or forms) that trick the user into believing they're taking an action, but unknown to them, they are actually installing a Chrome extension. [...]

Re:

[jellomizer]

Google is still open to 3rd parties. As a 3rd party you shouldn't try to trick into people getting something they do not want.

Why has society fallen so much that the idea of Ethics seems like a foreign concept.

Blocking adverts will be considered deceptive

[xack]

This comment removed for deception.

Re:

[jellomizer]

Advertising and Marketing doesn't need to be deceptive.
The basics on Ethical Business.
1. Think of a Product or Service that you think someone would Want to have or use.
2. Show off such product or service and explain why one would want it.
3. Be honest about its indented purposes.
4. If product or service doesn't sell, figure out what is wrong with it, and work to fix it.

We can get into more complex issues of Business Ethics. But keeping these in mind is a good start.

Adblocking

[110010001000]

Once Google removes the adblocking abilities of their browser, their market share will drop dramatically. I hope they realize this. There is no way I am using the web without some sort of adblocking capability.

Re:

[110010001000]

I don't agree. A significant number of people now are aware of adblocking, simply because of youtube adblocking. The most popular adblock extension has 60+ million users. Once kiddies start seeing youtube ads they will look for solutions.

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[swillden]

Once Google removes the adblocking abilities of their browser, their market share will drop dramatically. I hope they realize this. There is no way I am using the web without some sort of adblocking capability.

Google is not removing adblocking capability from Chrome. Google is proposing to remove one API that adblockers use, in favor of another that is less abuse-prone and more efficient. The only controversy is that the other one has a limit on the number of rules, which Google is proposing to increase when they figure out what it needs to be increased to.

Re:

[x_t0ken_407]

How exactly is it more efficient than the webRequest API? I'd seriously like to know the reasoning behind this statement.

Re:

[slack_justyb]

Once Google removes the adblocking abilities of their browser

I'm no fan of Chrome myself, but it is important that it is stated what is happening with that. Google isn't completely blocking ad-blockers they are changing how they'll be able to function which will massively hurt ad-blockers. To get a bit technical...

Manifest v3 is the API to be used by extensions in the future, including ad-blockers. In Manifest v2 there's a particular subset of that API called webRequest [chrome.com]. If you look at that document, you can immediately see how important this API is to ad-blocker

Re:

[RespekMyAthorati]

Wow!
A commenter who actually knows WTF he is talking about.

Unintended consequences?

[Anonymous Coward]

So a competitor could delist *my* extension by building a website that promotes it using misleading marketing and iframe tricks?

Does This Include Delisting Chrome Itself?

[Pauldow]

Shouldn't Chrome be removed for being installed when pressing Next while installing Adobe Acrobat Reader or RealPlayer?

Re:

[nwaack]

Exactly. More pot-kettle B.S. from Google.

Don't threaten....

[Heebie]

Don't threaten.... DO!

just foir words

[FudRucker]

goodbye google, hello firefox

What like Dissenter & AdNauseum?

[0xdeaddead]

LOL Google is so full of failure it's astounding.,

That's rich.

[jon3k]

Maybe they can also remove all those Chrome Browser installations that were installed through deceptive tactics, too? Like popup messages on google.com telling people to switch to Chrome [amazonaws.com].