| ▲ | kepano 2 hours ago | |
I can't speak for other platforms but neither option you propose seems right for Obsidian. I think the right approach for us is somewhere in between. If we were too controlling there wouldn't be the freedom of exploration that we see in the Obsidian community. There are so many niche use cases. Plugins can target a minuscule number of users, and that's a great thing. That's why malleability is one of our core principles: https://obsidian.md/about I also believe in treating users with intelligence. Obsidian has always skewed towards giving you the maximum freedom at the cost of letting you shoot yourself in the foot. It's impossible to guarantee that software has no bugs and no vulnerabilities, especially not third-party plugins. However that doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to detect dangerous or malicious behaviors. Any transparency we can provide in this regard seems helpful if it can be presented in a way that helps users make their own informed decisions. | ||
| ▲ | simonw 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | |
Thanks. I think it's likely I'm seeing this as a binary situation when actually it doesn't need to be that way. | ||
| ▲ | an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | |
| [deleted] | ||