Attributed metadata history
Up to 100 retained publisher events per page for 8de6b1a037ca6a682221c7e69d4fa945c52134e6e6229c87fba295b4c3bd4fba. Withdrawals and unavailable references remain attributed to their publishers.
intelligence_src_ad89769b9e64591ab5
observed · 2026-10-12 14:01:03 UTC
Let’s make one thing clear first: I’m not singling out Google’s handling of problematic and malicious browser extensions because it is worse than Microsoft’s for example. No, Microsoft is probably even worse but I never bothered finding out. That’s because Microsoft Edge doesn’t matter, its market share is too small. Google Chrome on the other hand is used by around 90% of the users world-wide, and one would expect Google to take their responsibility to protect its users very seriously, right? After all, browser extensions are one selling point of Google Chrome, so certainly Google would make sure they are safe? Unfortunately, my experience reporting numerous malicious or otherwise problematic browser extensions speaks otherwise. Google appears to take the “least effort required” approach towards moderating Chrome Web Store. Their attempts to automate all things moderation do little to deter malicious actors, all while creating considerable issues for authors of legitimate add-ons. Even when reports reach Google’s human moderation team, the actions taken are inconsistent, and Google generally shies away from taking decisive actions against established businesses
Fingerprint: 36200c654c2b48bba817785a34ea04186b259ab4fa321831b49ea9cd00199755
intelligence_src_ad89769b9e64591ab5
observed · 2026-10-12 14:01:03 UTC
available
Fingerprint: 05d146f940ea021a0ff67bda626eeffcdf1f2ccbc0f3c3114fff19b0a80eeaf4