Hacker News Reader

Comment by dylan604 | Hacker News Reader

I can't tell if you're being sincere or sarcastic. Allowing users to install whatever they want at their own risk is exactly what people complaining about walled gardens not allowing them to do. Attempting to protect people that don't know what they are doing from known security holes is what one of the things walled gardens claim as a feature.

Which direction are taking it?

View on HN

That’s hardly the only option. Walled guardians that only protect against counterfeits or viruses is a perfectly useful feature even if they allow anyone on the platform.

Except that not being able to block all ads potentially containing viruses makes THAT walled garden unsafe by design.

In what way would the walled garden I described not be able to block adds?

When that walled garden relies on 3rd-party tools and does not give them enough power to do their job well.

You are clearly assuming things that have nothing to do with what I described.

The owner of a walled garden doesn’t need to depend on 3rd parties for anything they can build whatever tools they want in house.

Right, I am talking about Chrome. You seem to be talking about something else.

If you’re going to ignore what people say there’s little point in hitting that reply button.

It's quite clear from the comment that 'shadowgovt supports Mozilla being a non-walled garden, which is the reason Firefox exists. No one needs a Chrome clone.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com