Would you trust the return dislike extension for YouTube?

Perplexity Sonar Pro

Vote: No

No, I would not fully trust the "Return YouTube Dislike" extension. It is an unofficial third-party tool, and the search results show that it estimates dislike counts using scraped data and extrapolation rather than direct YouTube API access. That means the numbers are inherently approximate, not authoritative. There is also community skepticism around browser extensions in general, and one result even mentions concerns about injected ads. For something that modifies how YouTube is displayed, I’d be cautious unless I had independently verified the source code and permissions.

Grok 4.3

Vote: No

Extensions like Return YouTube Dislike require broad permissions that could expose user data. Third-party tools carry inherent security and privacy risks that official features avoid. Users should prioritize caution over convenience when modifying core platform behavior.

Gemini 3.5 Flash

Vote: Yes

The 'Return YouTube Dislike' extension is widely considered trustworthy and safe to use. First, it is an open-source project, meaning its source code is publicly available on GitHub. This transparency allows security researchers and the community to audit the code, ensuring it does not contain malicious behavior or spyware. Second, the extension only requests the permissions necessary to function—specifically, access to youtube.com to modify the user interface and communicate with its own API. It does not harvest personal data. While the dislike counts it displays are estimates extrapolated from historical data and the behavior of its user base (since YouTube shut down official API access), the extension itself is secure, reliable, and serves its intended purpose safely.

GPT-5.5

Vote: No

I would choose "No" because a browser extension that restores YouTube dislikes typically requires access to YouTube pages and may collect or infer viewing-related data. Even if the project is popular, trusting an extension depends on its permissions, transparency, update history, and whether its code and data practices are independently verifiable. Also, the restored dislike counts are often estimates based on extension-user data and archived information, not the official complete YouTube dataset. That makes the feature useful as a rough signal, but not something I would fully trust for accuracy or privacy without careful review.

Claude Opus 4.7

Vote: No

The original Return YouTube Dislike extension cannot access real dislike data because YouTube removed the public dislike count API in late 2021. Instead, it estimates dislikes based on a small subset of users who have the extension installed and extrapolates from there, which introduces significant sampling bias and inaccuracy. Additionally, the extension requires permissions to read data on YouTube pages and transmits viewing data to a third-party server, raising privacy concerns. Beyond the official extension, many copycat versions exist that have been flagged as malware or adware. Given the unreliable data and privacy/security tradeoffs, I would not trust it.

Kimi K2.6

Vote: No

No third-party browser extension that injects scripts into an authenticated, high-value platform like YouTube should be granted unconditional trust, even if the project is open-source and widely used. Extensions update automatically, which means users must trust not just the current code but every future update without manual review. The extension also relies on an external API that can log which videos you watch, creating a privacy risk tied to your IP address and browsing patterns. Because YouTube is often tied to a Google account containing sensitive email, payment, and identity data, introducing an additional attack surface for a non-essential UI tweak is a poor security trade-off. If the dislike count is important, safer alternatives exist, such as using a dedicated secondary browser profile without sensitive logins, or relying on community comments and ratings rather than an extension that requires broad host permissions on youtube.com. Security hygiene demands minimizing the number of third-party scripts running inside sites that manage critical authentication sessions.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable reached a near-unanimous consensus of caution, with five of the six models advising against trusting the extension. While Gemini 3.5 Flash stood as the lone optimist, praising the project's open-source transparency, the majority—led by a particularly stern Kimi K2.6—argued that the 'security hygiene' of injecting third-party scripts into a site as sensitive as YouTube is a poor trade-off for a simple UI tweak.

No agreement after 1 rounds of discussion. Final vote: No: 5, Yes: 1

Strongest Arguments

• Yes: The extension's open-source nature allows for public audits, ensuring that its limited permissions are used strictly for UI modification rather than malicious data harvesting.
• No: Granting an extension permission to inject scripts into YouTube—a platform tied to sensitive Google account data like email and payments—introduces an unnecessary attack surface and privacy risk for non-essential data.