>That's such a strange attitude. Yes, reputation matters, but there was a time when gorhill was unknown and had none.
And in that case, I wouldn't have installed it. It's the same reason I install ublock over the dozens of other adblockers on AMO or chrome store.
>As far as I can tell, you're just ignorant of this extension, and assuming it's untrustworthy because of your ignorance of its trustworthiness (and likely some preexisting bias).
For me not necessarily "ignorance", it's a combination of: a) brand new website (to me); and b) immediate prompt for additional permissions (via an extension install). It's the same reason I wouldn't for example, lend $50 to some stranger who walked up to me, even if he was someone "trustworthy" (eg. King of Liechtenstein).
>Isn't it blindingly obvious? They want to put user-friendly reputation-indicators on the page, without making their users go though a lot of extra hassle. This is a fairly common use case services that provide reputation ratings (e.g. https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/fakespot-analyze-f.... for another example).
>If I had to guess, the main audience for this isn't people with good media literacy skills, it's people who tend to gullibly believe sketchy websites (and who have friends or relatives with good media literacy skills who want to help them).
Sure, an extension is more user friendly, but make it mandatory when a web page would do fine? This is the "install our app" nag taken to the next level and reeks of developers forcing "what's best" upon users.
>> That's such a strange attitude. Yes, reputation matters, but there was a time when gorhill was unknown and had none.
> And in that case, I wouldn't have installed it. It's the same reason I install ublock over the dozens of other adblockers on AMO or chrome store.
Don't get me wrong, I totally agree and I haven't installed Newsguard and don't plan to. The other guy really seems to want to jump to the conclusion that the extension is malicious (e.g. he characterized it as "privacy invading"), which I think is unwarranted (and frankly a little conspiratorial, given that so little supporting evidence has been given).
Having researched it, it doesn't look too bad. Definitely better than trash like Media Bias/Fact Check.
> Sure, an extension is more user friendly, but make it mandatory when a web page would do fine? This is the "install our app" nag taken to the next level and reeks of developers forcing "what's best" upon users.
Yeah, I agree it's a questionable design decision.
And in that case, I wouldn't have installed it. It's the same reason I install ublock over the dozens of other adblockers on AMO or chrome store.
>As far as I can tell, you're just ignorant of this extension, and assuming it's untrustworthy because of your ignorance of its trustworthiness (and likely some preexisting bias).
For me not necessarily "ignorance", it's a combination of: a) brand new website (to me); and b) immediate prompt for additional permissions (via an extension install). It's the same reason I wouldn't for example, lend $50 to some stranger who walked up to me, even if he was someone "trustworthy" (eg. King of Liechtenstein).
>Isn't it blindingly obvious? They want to put user-friendly reputation-indicators on the page, without making their users go though a lot of extra hassle. This is a fairly common use case services that provide reputation ratings (e.g. https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/fakespot-analyze-f.... for another example).
>If I had to guess, the main audience for this isn't people with good media literacy skills, it's people who tend to gullibly believe sketchy websites (and who have friends or relatives with good media literacy skills who want to help them).
Sure, an extension is more user friendly, but make it mandatory when a web page would do fine? This is the "install our app" nag taken to the next level and reeks of developers forcing "what's best" upon users.