You've just reinvented curation, but giving Google a pass for not them doing it themselves and shifting the work onto others.
Multiple regulators should sue Google for putting users at risk by failing to protect users from malicious code before publishing Chrome extensions and Android apps.
No, how it should work is each extension is associated with a private key that is registered with a specific individual or legal entity and implies some kind of liability for anything signed with that key - and if/when the key changes (or the associated credentials), users will be explicitely alerted and need to re-authenticate the plugin.
If the old owner gives their key to the new owner, then they should be on the hook for it.
I was thinking of this yesterday, as I think this is also how domains should work.
How does this safe guards against having the extension under a company and selling that company off. Still the same entity, different owners, different "incentives".
I'm using claude code to develop this for myself. The age of personal software is here! One stop shop, add things, query calendars, attach meeting notes. "What do I know about Tom's work in the last 3 months" --> agents go to internal tools to summarize the work.
Having formerly been a member of a terrorist group is different from currently being in one - it may not be illegal, but lying about it is a deportable offence.
reply