I didn't claim that it's implausible. I asked a question.

On the other hand, it's not that implausible either that someone might be running Google Chrome, Windows, Mac, etc. We know that many HN commenters do. Thus, while the OP may be 100% consistent, "I only run open source extensions that I can actually audit" would not be a consistent principle for those who also use closed source software.

▲

notpushkin 6 hours ago | parent [-]

Why do you think it’s not consistent? You don’t have to apply the same policies to everything you use.

▲

lapcat 5 hours ago | parent [-]

> You don’t have to apply the same policies to everything you use.

What's the reasoning behind it, though?

You can arbitrarily apply different policies to different things, but there's no rhyme or reason to that.

If the difference ultimately comes down to trusting certain developers to an extent that you don't need to audit their source, then I'm not sure why that couldn't also be true of certain extension developers.

▲

mixmastamyk 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Linux distros have a good reputation, browser extensions don’t. Might be simple as that.

	▲	lapcat 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It appears that you may have misunderstood the preceding discussion. Linux is open source and thus can be audited.