But adware companies are approaching publishers of far bigger extensions. Those extensions didn't have many users - "Add to Feedly" had only about 32,000. Google removed the two extensions after being contacted by The Wall Street Journal. Each extension had seen their user reviews sink from five stars to one.
Meanwhile, Ars Technica reported that the other extension Google removed, "Tweet This Page," also had been purchased and altered to insert ads. He said the new owner added code that injected invasive advertising on users. The uproar this weekend started when Amit Agrawal, the developer of "Add to Feedly," described on his website how he sold the extension to an unknown buyer for a small sum. But the code must adhere to Google's terms, and users generally get incensed when they find themselves exposed to ads from an unknown source. There is nothing improper about developers accepting payment for putting ad code into extensions. Google doesn't review changes to the code of Chrome extensions, and Chrome allows extensions to be updated and pushed to users' computers automatically. People who install extensions might not be aware that the software can be silently updated to include code that serves ads or reports back browsing habits. While "Add to Feedly" and "Tweet This Page" had small numbers of users, their kind of situation could be more pervasive: The owners of far more popular extensions say they have been offered money to incorporate ad code into their extensions.
0 kommentar(er)
