The new data transmission permissions seem to be misleading to users
discourse.mozilla.org
I’m the developer or SponsorBlock, an add-on for skipping integrated sponsorships, intros, outros and other unwanted sections of YouTube videos. It is a crowdsourced add-on, and relies on submissions on each individual YouTube video. Because of this, it fetches data from the server asking what submissions exist for a video, and uses that to skip parts of it. But privacy is integral, and we take many steps to make that the case. The add-on does not send what video you are watching to the server,...
  • youmaynotknow@lemmy.zipEnglish
    10·
    4 hours ago

    I swear that this is intentionally made. It wouldn’t surprise me if the companies that sell our data pushed or even pay for this verbiage in order to scare regular users out of using these helpful extensions.

    Yeah, I know I sound paranoid as fuck, but can you really blame me?

  • A_norny_mousse@piefed.zipEnglish
    2·
    2 hours ago

    But these new data transmission permissions seem to require us to declare many things anyway which are going to make users very confused.

    I’ve seen this before, in principle.

    Somewhere between an honest effort to not confuse non-technical users and a deliberate attempt to push out truly powerful addons (that might affect Big Tech sites’ bottom line). I know fediversians are going to say “definitely the latter” but I can never quite make up my mind.

    I guess there should be overrides a lá “I know this is potentially dangerous but I definitely know what I’m doing”.

    When will it become impossible to access about:config?

  • REDACTED@infosec.pubEnglish
    17·
    5 hours ago

    Well this is indeed misleading. It was actually great to see the dev of “return YouTube dislikes” chime in too since I disabled the addon because I saw the new permissions and noped the fuck out