Inconsistent policy enforcement:
29 views
Skip to first unread message
Nik Medica
4:31 PM (2 hours ago) 4:31 PM
to Chromium Extensions
Our extension was wrongfully rejected. Violation: Providing functionality on pornographic sites.
The current rejection reason claims that our extension is banned because it 'detects' or 'functions' on adult domains. This ruling contradicts the established enforcement standard applied to othe utilities currently active on the Web Store.
We can't get adequate response via the support team so we're trying it here. All we want is for our extension to be evaluated under the same 'utility exception' applied to the following categories:
1. Password managers (e.g., LastPass, 1Password)
Function: These extensions explicitly detect login fields on pornographic websites and inject data (credentials) into the page
Precedent: They are allowed because they are classified as utilities, not 'adult content,' even though they function on adult sites
2. AdBlockers (e.g., uBlock Origin, AdBlock Plus)
Function: These extensions scan and modify the DOM on pornographic sites to remove advertisements
Precedent: They are permitted to function on these domains because they are content-neutral tools
3. VPN extensions (e.g., NordVPN, ZenMate)
Function: These tools explicitly facilitate access to blocked adult sites
Precedent: They are allowed because their primary purpose is 'Connectivity/Security,' not promoting the content itself
Our compliance argument: TPD Deals performs the exact same technical action as a Password Manager or AdBlocker: It detects the domain to provide a content-neutral service (coupons/savings).
If the Web Store permits a Password Manager to inject data into a porn site, it must equitably permit a Shopping Utility to inject a discount code into the same site. We are requesting that our extension be re-classified as a shopping utility consistent with these existing precedents.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And also:
1. The extension connects only to our local SFW discount site (tpd.deals)
Case: [5-5004000040115]
Extension ID: fpepjgganmmnbbeiobaalkkajjnonkec
The current rejection reason claims that our extension is banned because it 'detects' or 'functions' on adult domains. This ruling contradicts the established enforcement standard applied to othe utilities currently active on the Web Store.
We can't get adequate response via the support team so we're trying it here. All we want is for our extension to be evaluated under the same 'utility exception' applied to the following categories:
1. Password managers (e.g., LastPass, 1Password)
Function: These extensions explicitly detect login fields on pornographic websites and inject data (credentials) into the page
Precedent: They are allowed because they are classified as utilities, not 'adult content,' even though they function on adult sites
2. AdBlockers (e.g., uBlock Origin, AdBlock Plus)
Function: These extensions scan and modify the DOM on pornographic sites to remove advertisements
Precedent: They are permitted to function on these domains because they are content-neutral tools
3. VPN extensions (e.g., NordVPN, ZenMate)
Function: These tools explicitly facilitate access to blocked adult sites
Precedent: They are allowed because their primary purpose is 'Connectivity/Security,' not promoting the content itself
Our compliance argument: TPD Deals performs the exact same technical action as a Password Manager or AdBlocker: It detects the domain to provide a content-neutral service (coupons/savings).
If the Web Store permits a Password Manager to inject data into a porn site, it must equitably permit a Shopping Utility to inject a discount code into the same site. We are requesting that our extension be re-classified as a shopping utility consistent with these existing precedents.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And also:
1. The extension connects only to our local SFW discount site (tpd.deals)
2. It does not contain or link directly to adult content
Based on Web Store policies, compliance is determined by the extension's immediate link destination. Any navigation beyond that verified landing page is user-initiated and should not be attributed to the extension's functionality. And like we said the only site that is connected with the extension itself is our SAFE FOR WORK discount site
Case: [5-5004000040115]
Extension ID: fpepjgganmmnbbeiobaalkkajjnonkec
Patrick Kettner
4:34 PM (2 hours ago) 4:34 PM
to Nik Medica, Chromium Extensions
Hey Nik!
I am working with the policy review team to see if we can get this re-evaluated based on the precedents you cited, I assure you I will be updating you as soon as possible.
Appreciate your patience
patrick
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Chromium Extensions" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to chromium-extens...@chromium.org.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/chromium-extensions/e40d3fdc-44a4-4048-b713-514746400375n%40chromium.org.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages