> Then make it complicated enough so the user has to click through several screens, type in that they know what they're doing and be warned that if extension/website X asks them to do Y, they're getting f'd and should stop. Beyond that, it's their fault.
Yeah I mean... that's just an arms race. You now have to type "allow pasting" into the dev console to paste Javascript there. Guess why.
Browsers can't ever win that race. Malicious extensions will just say "go to settings and blah blah blah".
> You now have to type "allow pasting" into the dev console to paste Javascript there. Guess why.
Would you be content with Chrome (hypothetically) taking away the console instead? Your average user has no business using it anyway.
> Browsers can't ever win that race. Malicious extensions will just say "go to settings and blah blah blah".
You're absolutely right, they can't win the race. People have been plugging holes in software for decades and malware still hasn't been defeated. Taking features away just to plug more holes instead of restricting them doesn't seem right to me. One could argue (I haven't looked this up, though) that even more users fall victims to malware in spite of today's "locked" browsers (and phones) simply because there's an ever increasing number of people online. A lot of that malware is being spread through misleading ads and malicious code that uBO blocks.
With uBO vanishing, a lot of users will be left without an adblocker. Those who aren't tech-savvy enough won't know what to install instead (eg uBL). They'll go on browsing unprotected. Google will see a spike in ad revenue and will be pleased. They have no real interest in blocking scammy ads.
Yeah I mean... that's just an arms race. You now have to type "allow pasting" into the dev console to paste Javascript there. Guess why.
Browsers can't ever win that race. Malicious extensions will just say "go to settings and blah blah blah".