Jacobwworkman wrote:

so it was a normal day in scratch enjoying their Scratch extension until.. the ST found out about extensions then suddenly ST SMASHED the Extension by just deleting the studios and the users that makes ISonline and other users work! :O
then they delete what is isonline on the Scratch Wiki! terrible right? then they replace the advertiser with and then they lose their crowns D:
then people got admin messages about it and the forum! D: and they change the terms of use
(NOT GOSSIPING)

Inkulumo wrote:

Jacobwworkman wrote:

so it was a normal day in scratch enjoying their Scratch extension until.. the ST found out about extensions then suddenly ST SMASHED the Extension by just deleting the studios and the users that makes ISonline and other users work! :O
then they delete what is isonline on the Scratch Wiki! terrible right? then they replace the advertiser with and then they lose their crowns D:
then people got admin messages about it and the forum! D: and they change the terms of use
(NOT GOSSIPING)

That's kinda over-reacting. Crowns don't matter much. ST only did it because it's mainly a kids site, and being the “somewhat” overprotective people they are, it ended up with a ban. I agree there should be a sort of community moderator program where they check extensions, links, and if they send out any data or anything that can compromise accounts or general online safety.

Jacobwworkman wrote:

Inkulumo wrote:

Jacobwworkman wrote:

so it was a normal day in scratch enjoying their Scratch extension until.. the ST found out about extensions then suddenly ST SMASHED the Extension by just deleting the studios and the users that makes ISonline and other users work! :O
then they delete what is isonline on the Scratch Wiki! terrible right? then they replace the advertiser with and then they lose their crowns D:
then people got admin messages about it and the forum! D: and they change the terms of use
(NOT GOSSIPING)

That's kinda over-reacting. Crowns don't matter much. ST only did it because it's mainly a kids site, and being the “somewhat” overprotective people they are, it ended up with a ban. I agree there should be a sort of community moderator program where they check extensions, links, and if they send out any data or anything that can compromise accounts or general online safety.

TRUE! I was just rushing

MasterOfTheTiger wrote:

Tymewalk wrote:

Semi-support. I support having clearer rules on what is and isn't allowed, and I think talk of making extensions and stuff like that (within Scratchers) should be allowed, and held to the same standards of any other post, but I don't support sharing generic extensions (i.e, extensions like f.lux or one of my personal favorites, HTTPS Everywhere), and I'm kind of on the fence about things like sharing links. While many browser extensions are very useful for a wide variety of things, and under the policy that's being enforced (as mentioned in the OP), sharing these with other Scratchers would be disallowed no matter what the purpose is, I feel that it comes with quite a few more cons than pros.

I'd like to offer a few counterpoints.

Extensions that are open source, ad-free, safe, have limited permissions and a privacy policy, and are owned by Scratchers you trust can’t be mentioned in the website, no matter how useful they are.

I do support allowing mentions of them, but I don't agree with the reasoning that they could be useful. Ghostery is an extension that blocks data trackers, which is very useful, but it was later found out that they were collecting and selling users' data. Just because something is useful doesn't mean that it should get a pass.

Scratch users can’t share their creations in more advanced programming languages, except for websites, which can only do very limited things in terms of permissions.

Isn't GitHub allowed? I don't remember ever seeing policies on not sharing any code that isn't in Scratch.

Extensions with no permissions can’t be shared, when they can’t do any harm.

Most extensions require the ability to read and edit the sites you visit. This is done so they can add their own textboxes or tweak page elements (for example, HTTPS Everywhere replaces unsecure HTTP links with their HTTPS counterparts). Pop-up dictionaries (i.e, Yomichan) use this to get the word under the cursor, as another example.

There is a lot that can be done with just that. It'd be possible to quickly write a script that replaces all links with those to malicious sites, or to inject small tracker images, and in the case of the latter example, it can be pretty easy to go without being noticed. All extensions are going to require some base permission like that to actually be functional, so even if that still counts as a permission, having only extensions with no permissions is pretty much impossible.

A useful comment like “I know you’re color-blind, so I suggest you use a program called f.lux, it lets you tweak colors and you’ll be able to code on Scratch easier” would be against the guidelines - how can you welcome all types of people into the website if you can’t share extensions or programs that make using Scratch more accessible?

Just because you can't share an extension doesn't mean you can't welcome those types of people into the community. This specific example could be easily solved by having an option within Scratch to alter the block colors (which, IIRC, exists as part of some debug menu, and is also being worked on for Scratch 3.0).

It’s a tremendous amount of time wasted for the moderators to remove links to open source, ad-free, safe extensions.

It's also a tremendous amount of time wasted to examine every one of those to make sure they're not secretly doing something malicious. See my example above. 1x1 tracker images can be easily buried somewhere in a page, and if you have a big enough extension, the only way to notice would be to comb through all of the code. It's honestly simpler to remove all links than it is to examine all of them to make sure they're OK. There is, however, a report button for a reason, so that may lessen the load on the ST.

It doesn’t let extension users communicate with extension creators inside the Scratch website without going to an external website, which is against the CGs.

I agree with this point, talk of making extensions should definitely be allowed.

Not being able to share Scratcher-made extensions officially from the scratch website makes it harder to connect the Scratch user and the extension, making it easier for people with malicious intent to impersonate the creator and distribute a dangerous copy.

I don't see how this policy would affect anything. If you share the extension on GitHub, for example, then it's registered under your username there. The only risk I can see would be another Scratch user trying to impersonate the extension creator here, but that's already against the rules.

This Policy is Limiting Creativity

I don't see how. As I said before, I don't recall any rules against sharing code in other languages. A browser extension is pretty neat, and lets you do a lot of cool things, but I don't see how not allowing them to be shared is limiting creativity.

It generates spam, anger and hate. This means more work for the scratch moderators.

As I said before, examining all links will cause tons of extra work. And it can also make things unclear. If the guidelines are not clear and firm with no exceptions, it can cause cases such as “why is X allowed but not Y?” or grey areas such as "but X kind of follows the rules, it's just a little different", which means they then have to make many more new policies. If the ST does decide to revise its current policy, I support having these hard guidelines.

The line between talking about an extension, mentioning it, linking to it, or advertising it is unclear.

Most people who know about the rule disagree with it. Who will report things that are against the policy?

I support having clear guidelines on this for the reasons I stated above.

Streisand effect: It actually makes people talk more about extensions - when you block something entirely, people have to react, and they inadvertently advertise extensions even more.

That seems like a problem with the people talking about it and not with the ST's ruling. People don't have to react negatively or in a way that intentionally goes against the policy.

I agree with a lot of your points. I 100% agree that they should be able to be mentioned on Scratch. There is no good reason not to. I do understand the ST not liking the idea of mass posting links to extensions like isOnline everwhere, but can't I say to a friend on Scratch, “Hey, I like this browser extension, you should try it,” or something like that. Talk of browser extensions should not be banned, that is just dumb. There are worse speech on Scratch that could be censored, why this?

I do not like how the ST decided this suddenly and harshly. They did not talk about the best ways to prevent this rather than just making a blanket rule for all mention of browser extensions. They could have talked with the developers, and at least told them they were going to do this before making a sudden announcement.

GamesGuyTV wrote:

MasterOfTheTiger wrote:

Tymewalk wrote:

Semi-support. I support having clearer rules on what is and isn't allowed, and I think talk of making extensions and stuff like that (within Scratchers) should be allowed, and held to the same standards of any other post, but I don't support sharing generic extensions (i.e, extensions like f.lux or one of my personal favorites, HTTPS Everywhere), and I'm kind of on the fence about things like sharing links. While many browser extensions are very useful for a wide variety of things, and under the policy that's being enforced (as mentioned in the OP), sharing these with other Scratchers would be disallowed no matter what the purpose is, I feel that it comes with quite a few more cons than pros.

I'd like to offer a few counterpoints.

Extensions that are open source, ad-free, safe, have limited permissions and a privacy policy, and are owned by Scratchers you trust can’t be mentioned in the website, no matter how useful they are.

I do support allowing mentions of them, but I don't agree with the reasoning that they could be useful. Ghostery is an extension that blocks data trackers, which is very useful, but it was later found out that they were collecting and selling users' data. Just because something is useful doesn't mean that it should get a pass.

Scratch users can’t share their creations in more advanced programming languages, except for websites, which can only do very limited things in terms of permissions.

Isn't GitHub allowed? I don't remember ever seeing policies on not sharing any code that isn't in Scratch.

Extensions with no permissions can’t be shared, when they can’t do any harm.

Most extensions require the ability to read and edit the sites you visit. This is done so they can add their own textboxes or tweak page elements (for example, HTTPS Everywhere replaces unsecure HTTP links with their HTTPS counterparts). Pop-up dictionaries (i.e, Yomichan) use this to get the word under the cursor, as another example.

There is a lot that can be done with just that. It'd be possible to quickly write a script that replaces all links with those to malicious sites, or to inject small tracker images, and in the case of the latter example, it can be pretty easy to go without being noticed. All extensions are going to require some base permission like that to actually be functional, so even if that still counts as a permission, having only extensions with no permissions is pretty much impossible.

A useful comment like “I know you’re color-blind, so I suggest you use a program called f.lux, it lets you tweak colors and you’ll be able to code on Scratch easier” would be against the guidelines - how can you welcome all types of people into the website if you can’t share extensions or programs that make using Scratch more accessible?

Just because you can't share an extension doesn't mean you can't welcome those types of people into the community. This specific example could be easily solved by having an option within Scratch to alter the block colors (which, IIRC, exists as part of some debug menu, and is also being worked on for Scratch 3.0).

It’s a tremendous amount of time wasted for the moderators to remove links to open source, ad-free, safe extensions.

It's also a tremendous amount of time wasted to examine every one of those to make sure they're not secretly doing something malicious. See my example above. 1x1 tracker images can be easily buried somewhere in a page, and if you have a big enough extension, the only way to notice would be to comb through all of the code. It's honestly simpler to remove all links than it is to examine all of them to make sure they're OK. There is, however, a report button for a reason, so that may lessen the load on the ST.

It doesn’t let extension users communicate with extension creators inside the Scratch website without going to an external website, which is against the CGs.

I agree with this point, talk of making extensions should definitely be allowed.

Not being able to share Scratcher-made extensions officially from the scratch website makes it harder to connect the Scratch user and the extension, making it easier for people with malicious intent to impersonate the creator and distribute a dangerous copy.

I don't see how this policy would affect anything. If you share the extension on GitHub, for example, then it's registered under your username there. The only risk I can see would be another Scratch user trying to impersonate the extension creator here, but that's already against the rules.

This Policy is Limiting Creativity

I don't see how. As I said before, I don't recall any rules against sharing code in other languages. A browser extension is pretty neat, and lets you do a lot of cool things, but I don't see how not allowing them to be shared is limiting creativity.

It generates spam, anger and hate. This means more work for the scratch moderators.

As I said before, examining all links will cause tons of extra work. And it can also make things unclear. If the guidelines are not clear and firm with no exceptions, it can cause cases such as “why is X allowed but not Y?” or grey areas such as "but X kind of follows the rules, it's just a little different", which means they then have to make many more new policies. If the ST does decide to revise its current policy, I support having these hard guidelines.

The line between talking about an extension, mentioning it, linking to it, or advertising it is unclear.

Most people who know about the rule disagree with it. Who will report things that are against the policy?

I support having clear guidelines on this for the reasons I stated above.

Streisand effect: It actually makes people talk more about extensions - when you block something entirely, people have to react, and they inadvertently advertise extensions even more.

That seems like a problem with the people talking about it and not with the ST's ruling. People don't have to react negatively or in a way that intentionally goes against the policy.

I agree with a lot of your points. I 100% agree that they should be able to be mentioned on Scratch. There is no good reason not to. I do understand the ST not liking the idea of mass posting links to extensions like isOnline everwhere, but can't I say to a friend on Scratch, “Hey, I like this browser extension, you should try it,” or something like that. Talk of browser extensions should not be banned, that is just dumb. There are worse speech on Scratch that could be censored, why this?

I do not like how the ST decided this suddenly and harshly. They did not talk about the best ways to prevent this rather than just making a blanket rule for all mention of browser extensions. They could have talked with the developers, and at least told them they were going to do this before making a sudden announcement.

Yeah it makes no sense to disallow all browser extensions, especially safe ones

Jacobwworkman wrote:

bump all post *.*

wWSunPandaWw wrote:

Jacobwworkman wrote:

bump all post *.*

Hey, please don't spam bump.
Please wait until it has been 24 hours since the last post or until this topic is on the second page, whichever comes first.

Jacobwworkman wrote:

but wat will happen if there was an extension that could track you?

World_Languages wrote:

Jacobwworkman wrote:

but wat will happen if there was an extension that could track you?

You can tell Google or Mozilla about it and they'll take action.

jokebookservice1 wrote:

World_Languages wrote:

Jacobwworkman wrote:

but wat will happen if there was an extension that could track you?

You can tell Google or Mozilla about it and they'll take action.

What if there was an extension that could remember which pages on Scratch you went to and when, and the extension won't work without it. Nobody can prove the makers of the extension aren't logging that data (nor can they prove that they aren't, for that matter). Point is, that extension would probably be allowed by Chrome and Firefox; even though it's ‘tracking’ you.

jokebookservice1 wrote:

You didn't quite understand what I'm saying. What if the extension's functionality requires sending tracking data to an external server? (This has happened in the past). You cannot review server-side code, not even if the host claims to publish a copy of the source code.

MasterOfTheTiger wrote:

jokebookservice1 wrote:

World_Languages wrote:

Jacobwworkman wrote:

but wat will happen if there was an extension that could track you?

You can tell Google or Mozilla about it and they'll take action.

What if there was an extension that could remember which pages on Scratch you went to and when, and the extension won't work without it. Nobody can prove the makers of the extension aren't logging that data (nor can they prove that they aren't, for that matter). Point is, that extension would probably be allowed by Chrome and Firefox; even though it's ‘tracking’ you.

You can check the code pretty easily.

jokebookservice1 wrote:

You didn't quite understand what I'm saying. What if the extension's functionality requires sending tracking data to an external server? (This has happened in the past). You cannot review server-side code, not even if the host claims to publish a copy of the source code.

Jacobwworkman wrote:

MasterOfTheTiger wrote:

You can check the code pretty easily.

O_O You got to be kidding me….

World_Languages wrote:

Hey we're going offtopic