Ole hyvä ja kirjaudu sisään! Jos et ole vielä rekisteröitynyt, sekin onnistuu ohessa.
Hi. I was surprised recently to see that one of the most popular scripts on Greasy Fork not only tracks people, but has no obvious warning. Its bad behavior is not mentioned at all in the Greasy Fork description, but there is a link at the bottom to two 768x3200 pixel PNG images of a lot of legalese. How many of the thousands of people who installed the script actually clicked on the links, much less read and understood them? I think if it had been clearly explained, very few of them would have agreed to the bargain.
I thought it was pretty obvious the script did not belong on Greasy Fork, but when I reported it I was corrected and told that this is considered acceptable behavior for this community.
So my questions are:
① why is this allowed? It doesn't seem to benefit the community. It's not even something people can legally learn from and fork as the legalese claims the code is a proprietary work.
And, ② what can be done to make it more obvious to people that the tradeoff of using this script is that they are agreeing that everything they do in their browser, even incognito and encrypted, can be sent to some shell corporation?
I suggest a new feature: clearly mark scripts that send information to a third party. There should be a big red warning label at the top for known tracking scripts so people know what bargain they are making and with whom. Perhaps there are some people who are okay with having their communications with, for example, their bank sent to an unknown third party, but I think even they would want Greasy Fork to have given some warning ahead of time.