This persistent infantilisation of users is going to lead to a crippled world. Basic computer security and hygiene is not rocket science. We should start teaching this from school level so even "ordinary" people can make informed choices rather than being confined to gilded cages whose perimeter will eventually expand to encompass even the tech folk, as the gatekeeping power of these companies grows ever larger, with malware attacks acting as the convenient foil.

Why SHOULDN'T phones and computers be "infantilized" the same way cars, microwaves, iPods, toasters, electricity outlets, etc. are? They're just another appliance, and 99% of people use their devices for information consumption & entertainment rather than content creation. Regular users shouldn't have to give up ease of use to satisfy developer needs. Android is so fragmented today precisely because Google decided to cater to OEMs instead of users first, and like it or not, the walled gardens ARE a lot safer than Windows/Android, regardless of whether you follow security best practices.

Most users don't need that level of power or customization and it just opens up not only attack vectors but general UX confusion. Hide that sort of thing behind an admin mode or whatever, but otherwise, yes, PLEASE hide dangerous functionality so people aren't exposed to them.

Users aren't asking to be treated like children, they just don't want to have to think about zero-days and layers of config menus because some developer in an ivory tower valued "muh freedoms" too much.

What makes you think these skills aren't being taught?

I'd guess the marketshares of Microsoft, Google, Facebook, Apple etc.?

> The average user will not read security warnings

The basic point of my comment is that deprecating the capabilities or the current API just because there can be a security risk in some cases for the average user is harmful to the more advanced users.

You focus on one possible solution mentioned about warning dialogs. However, there are lots of different solutions available which would allow it to run only with knowing 100% that the user knows what they're doing aside from warnings.

There can be a command line flag --developer etc. just like there is for unsafe certs.

'Use a browser that supports it' is not a solution since - as you said - Chrome has the largest user base why would a developer put in the effort to develop a solution for a minorly used browser.

Since the major browser is closing this API there will be no possible use of this type of functionality for anyone - even the users who know what they're doing.

Product liability to the masses likely weighs much heavier as a concern to the developers of Chrome than does any harm done to “advanced users”. Beginner users often do what advanced users tell them too, anyhow.

>>I.e. just use a browser that supports the extensions you need instead.

Wonder how long that'll be an option. I use FF for all my browsing and its amazing how much stuff breaks if you're not using chrome. I'm thinking the re-captcha stuff should be used as evidence in a google anti-trust case :-P "Oh, your on firefox? here...lets identify all these pictures.."

One fun trick is to set your UA in FF to tell websites it’s latest Chrome :)

I remember there used to be plugins for setting the UA to mimic popular browsers. I should see if I can dig one up. Thanks!

Wow, so you believe this is actually being done to protect users from themselves, and not to hamstring adblocking in the future?

I wish I still had that kind of innocence.

The level of low effort negativity on HN these days is just exhausting. Chrome has a stellar track record on security all the way back to the launch, both on an engineering and product level. Why would it be surprising that they're continuing with that?

Malicious extensions are probably the biggest existential threat to the web as a platform. If browser regain the reputation for being insecure that they deservedly had 15 years ago, more and more serious business will move into mobile app walled gardens. This has to be solved.

But rather than accept the simple explanation, we get these inane conspiracy theories on what the true motivation is. No, it's not about ad blockers because the subject of this blog post is not a feature that ad blockers would use. And the same for the half dozen alternative explanations.

Seriously, what is wrong with you people? Can't you at least save the high school level cynicism for situations where an assumption of malice makes some sense?

You're so exhausted! Poor guy!

Got any stats on what percentage of the browser install base has even one extension installed? Then we can come back to your "tHe biGgEsT eXisTenTiAL ThReAt" nonsense.

And how an assumption of malice doesn't make sense when we're talking about the world's biggest ad company doing something in the name of security that happens to cripple ad blockers -- well, suffice to say, you're probably not cut out for journalism.

Now go get some rest?

It’s an oversimplification to chalk it up to some ulterior motive. Design decisions like this are hardly ever unilateral, and there are many competing interests.