Please, for the last time, stop using this rhetoric. How would you like to be called an idiot? As a developer and a user, I'm deeply offended by this condescending attitude.
I really don't know what people like -- apparently opt-out is bad, so now we're using opt-in. Still, "opt-in" is bad because it's becoming a toilet? How do you expect _any_ platform to work? Self-host everything?
As for the rhetoric, I'm sorry you feel picked upon. I was speaking generally, not directly at you... but if that still doesn't reflect your experience of the idiots bumping their way around your product, lucky you. Seriously. Even in B2B apps with supposed experts, we get some alarmingly silly feedback.
Everyone is ignorant about something. Take brilliant IT professionals. For many of them, manners and social skills are one of their weak areas.
Sorry if that is a sore point for you. But, making a point in the particular case is not the same as tarring all IT people. I do plenty to give push back against such stereotypes. * I generally prefer the company of IT people. I long have. It is part of why I spend so much time on HN. But I don't feel I need to follow some sort of extremist zero tolerance policy here.
* For example: http://micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com/2017/08/communicatin...
A person can be clever but people still do stupid things. I do not by any means truly think my users are mentally abnormal, really just that everybody —even those with specific, specialised counter-phishing training— succumb to really stupid things when we're manipulated in the right way.
As somebody developing systems, we really have to build defensively when users' wanton disregard for (eg) data security (manhandling customer databases, giving out their access to colleagues, clients, etc) conflicts with their employers, our and our regulators' data protection rules. So again, be offended if you like, but we're protecting our livelihoods.
In the context of this, Google could protect users against themselves and make the marketplace trustworthy.
That's kind of how the Internet was supposed to work. As it is, we've inverted it, and with that we've also inverted the ownership of data.
If you really want to go down this path -- a broken clock is correct twice, as two discrete points in a continuous time space. The act of looking at the clock is analogous to sampling one discrete point in the time space. The possibility of sampling those two points at any given time is zero.
So no, a broken clock is not correct twice a day. Also, please stop proving anything with analogy.
"Users are idiots!"
Seems like an inappropriate contribution
They seem to be part of "GSuite Marketplace," which is what businesses use, so presumably the domain admin would also have control over which apps can be installed.
Years of Britney Spears Naked Screensavers and malware "removers" have taught us that users are idiots. You can net a bazillion users with one "unlimited space" add-on.
Obviously, there's some vetting but that doesn't always work.
These add-ons could run on Google's servers and only have connectivity to your inbox and session. Instead, this appears to allow companies to do what they like, sharting your data over multiple jurisdictions if they want. Doesn't fill me with confidence.