I agree but let me play the devil's advocate. I'll channel Stallman:

Same argument can be applied to all closed source software.

In the end its about who you trust and who needs to be verified and that is relative, subjective, and contextual... always.

So unless you can read the source code and compile yourself on a system you built on an OS you also built from source on a machine built before server management backdoors were built into every server... you are putting your trust somewhere and you cannot really validate it beyond wider public percetptions.

Don't forget to channel Ken Thompson ("Reflections on Trusting Trust") -- you can read the source code, but where did you get the compiler?

This can be mitigated by Bootstrappable builds: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41368835

Most of them jump out as immediately dodgy -- except Stylsh. That is the only one I've ever used on the list but it's been several years.

HN story about what Stylish was up to 7 and a bit years ago:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17447816

I'd assumed most people would have jumped ship to Stylus [1] after that, but most people probably never heard anything about what Stylish was/is doing.

[1] https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/stylus/clngdbkpkpee...

I like stylus, it doesn't have an intuitive ui though. Wish they'd improve it.

"zoom", "LibreOffice Editor", "Enhanced Image Viewer", "Video Downloader PLUS"

I guess I shouldnt be surprised on how many use "LibreOffice" or other legit company names to lend legitimacy to themselves. I'm wondering if companies like Zoom don't audit the extension store for copyright claims

I for sure used to use Video Downloader PLUS when I still used chrome (and before youtube-dl)

Stylish was sold in 2016, and has had spyware from at least 2018 on.

When the state picks the winners everyone loses.

Run it into the ground!