MClovers wrote:

Wow. Just wow. I'm not trying to be rude but it's the truth.
You guys remove everything for no reason.

will803 wrote:

RosyStar wrote:

That's unfair. I have scratchmoji and isonline and i might not be able to use them anymore (

U can still use them (I have them to along with Master Scratch Userscript and I am Supa Sad now)

Carriage wrote:

DON’T GIVE MY SIDE ACCOUNT AN ALERT! I lost its password…

JUST WHATEVER YOU DO DON’T TOUCH MY SIDE ACCOUNT!!

I’m sorry for advertising browser extensions I didn’t realise and I lost its password… please… ST help me………………




PLEASE NO ALERTS! PLEASE!!!!!

World_Languages wrote:

Ok. I'll take a breath and actually implement that in my mind (this is a big change to my Scratch habits) and then I'll see what I'll do with isOnline. Thinking of deleting it from the store would be a good first approach, I guess.

m1ghty_boy wrote:

World_Languages wrote:

Ok. I'll take a breath and actually implement that in my mind (this is a big change to my Scratch habits) and then I'll see what I'll do with isOnline. Thinking of deleting it from the store would be a good first approach, I guess.

I think they should verify extensions by looking through the source code and/or test it, and disable ones that have not been verified yet or rejected.

scratcherjack9000 wrote:

You made all isOnline users lose there crowns. Ouch.

acduckii_rises wrote:

rip the ST never lets the community have a say on things like this

Slugasaurus wrote:

This doesn’t really affect me since I don’t use iO anymore…

but…

Are we still allowed to mention them? Like “You should get isOnline!” but not actually having a link to download. Or “ScratchMoji is awesome!” Is that allowed? Also, what about the iO crown? What’ll happen to that?

Why ban isOnlineV2 as well? In case the ST didn’t realise it was also the iO Q&A page, tips page, and tutorial page. iO cannot continue without the Q&A page!

_EIektron_ wrote:

I understand that the Scratch Team wants extensions not being used for safety reasons. However, what if they were open source? You could see their code, if you don't like what they are doing it is all up to you to decide if you want to have the extension or not. I simply believe extensions make a website better.

_EIektron_ wrote:

I understand that the Scratch Team wants extensions not being used for safety reasons. However, what if they were open source? You could see their code, if you don't like what they are doing it is all up to you to decide if you want to have the extension or not. I simply believe extensions make a website better.

var allowedExtensions = [];
function checkExt(name,codesite,downloadsite) {
var datavar;
$.get(codesite,function(data,status){datavar=data;});
// a code idea for code-based filters
if (datavar.search("a dangerous possible code goes here...")===-1) {
// other filters like this would go inside here and the following code would go inside all of them
var website;
$.get("view-source:"+downloadsite,function(data,status){website=data;});
if(website.search(codesite)!==-1) {
allowedExtensions.push(name);
}
}
}

AmazingMech2418 wrote:

_EIektron_ wrote:

I understand that the Scratch Team wants extensions not being used for safety reasons. However, what if they were open source? You could see their code, if you don't like what they are doing it is all up to you to decide if you want to have the extension or not. I simply believe extensions make a website better.

I agree! That's why I say there should be a filter-bot. Maybe the code could be something like this:

var allowedExtensions = [];
function checkExt(name,codesite,downloadsite) {
var datavar;
$.get(codesite,function(data,status){datavar=data;});
// a code idea for code-based filters
if (datavar.search("a dangerous possible code goes here...")===-1) {
// other filters like this would go inside here and the following code would go inside all of them
var website;
$.get(downloadsite,function(data,status){website=data;});
if(website.search(codesite)!==-1) {
allowedExtensions.push(name);
}
}
}

This code should work but may not. If not, just a few changes would be needed. There could then be an auto-moderator that checks to see if the names or websites of the extensions appear and if they aren't in the allowedExtensions array, they will be replaced with the “**” that is used by manual extension moderators now.

--Waterfall-- wrote:

AmazingMech2418 wrote:

_EIektron_ wrote:

I understand that the Scratch Team wants extensions not being used for safety reasons. However, what if they were open source? You could see their code, if you don't like what they are doing it is all up to you to decide if you want to have the extension or not. I simply believe extensions make a website better.

I agree! That's why I say there should be a filter-bot. Maybe the code could be something like this:

var allowedExtensions = [];
function checkExt(name,codesite,downloadsite) {
var datavar;
$.get(codesite,function(data,status){datavar=data;});
// a code idea for code-based filters
if (datavar.search("a dangerous possible code goes here...")===-1) {
// other filters like this would go inside here and the following code would go inside all of them
var website;
$.get(downloadsite,function(data,status){website=data;});
if(website.search(codesite)!==-1) {
allowedExtensions.push(name);
}
}
}

This code should work but may not. If not, just a few changes would be needed. There could then be an auto-moderator that checks to see if the names or websites of the extensions appear and if they aren't in the allowedExtensions array, they will be replaced with the “**” that is used by manual extension moderators now.

Yes, that would be cool. An auto-moderator that checks that and monitors would be a better solution.

KarateToast wrote:

What? I don't get involved with this stuff a lot. But they removed my deleted project that was unshared? How does that work?…It's deleted…And…they removed it? What?

aking_ wrote:

Thank you for this actually. I honestly have the same mindset as the ST about this, these kinds of things are too sketchy for me, and all the advertising about “IsOnline” has grown old.

--Waterfall-- wrote:

acduckii_rises wrote:

rip the ST never lets the community have a say on things like this

I really do think everyone should stop ranting about this. The ST has already decided, so trying to change it is futile.

-stache- wrote:

You can see the source if you're worried tho (and it asks for specific permissions as do all extensions).