6 ms·

An update to UBlock Origin was rejected by the Chrome Web Store

323 points by vzjrz 11y ago

cven714 11y ago
Will this affect those of us who already have it installed?
- teamhappy 11y ago
  Nope.
- lettergram 11y ago
  That should be fine. Only the update was rejected
- baldfat 11y ago
  From the developer above: > However the email I received is titled "Chrome Web Store: Removal notification for uBlock Origin".
- Nexxxeh 11y ago
  In the immediate term, no, it shouldn't. The update was rejected, but the already published version remains up. There's nothing catastrophic in the earlier version. In the medium term, yes, because if this issues can't be resolved then the Chrome version will be stuck on that version and lag behind other browsers. And while there are hoops you can jump through, if it's not approved on the Chrome Web Store, it's not getting in your Chrome. On the plus side, sounds like good news for Opera.
  - caoilte 11y ago
    Can you not install extensions directly any more?
    - Nexxxeh 11y ago
      Not in the Stable or Beta channels of Chrome. (There may be a way of re-enabling it, but frankly, Opera or something Chromium based.) https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/2811969?hl=en-GB https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/2811969?hl=en-GB
- Killswitch 11y ago
  Shouldn't but if it's taken down, you can just download the code from the repo and install it using developer mode.
eli 11y ago
Headline is wrong. An update to the plugin was rejected (with the option to resubmit), but the previous version is clearly still in the store: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ublock-origin/cjpalhdlnbpafiamejdnhcphjbkeiagm?hl=en https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ublock-origin/cjpa... I empathize with the developer, but Occam's Razor suggests this isn't anything more than a typically crummy vague Walled Garden app store rejection. I'd take their advice and re-submit.
- gorhill 11y ago
  Yes, it still is in the store as of now. However the email I received is titled "Chrome Web Store: Removal notification for uBlock Origin". In any case, it's just impossible for me to figure what is the issue. I could spend a inordinate amount of time guess-shuffling code around for no result. Assuming the email title is misleading -- let's say uBlock Origin won't be removed from the Chrome store, there is nothing special in 1.3.2 compared to any other releases, and from the look of it I won't ever be able to fix whatever is deemed wrong without specifics, and as a consequence, no updates lead to abandonware. Edit: I will add that with Firefox and Opera, there has always been communication with specifics when I was asked to fix something, and I always did fix as demanded (or suggested).
  - maxerickson 11y ago
    Are the block lists maybe considered code? Updating them at first start would fit the description of not having them visible in the package.
    - gorhill 11y ago
      The filter lists which are selected by default are part of the package. An updated versions of these lists is progressively downloaded a few minutes after first install. But this has been like this since forever now, this is not new. This demonstrates the problem here, we are left to speculate endlessly about what the is the issue(s) according to the Chrome store.
cballard 11y ago
Apps that do controversial things with respect to Apple or Google seem to get rejected for seemingly random technical reasons a lot. What does it even mean for code in a packaged program to be "visible"? It should be invisible! That's the whole point of packaging!
- sqldba 11y ago
  Yes. It's bad news and exactly why free software supporters need to keep fighting the good fight and spreading the word. We can't allow technical oligarchies control over what we do with our computing, enacting stupid policies, with no outside visibility or accountability.
- eli 11y ago
  Apps that do non-controversial things get rejected for seemingly random technical reasons a lot too.
- deelowe 11y ago
  > Apps that do controversial things with respect to Apple or Google seem to get rejected for seemingly random technical reasons a lot. This is regarding the chrome web store, not the play store. Also, I'm aware of Apple taking a pretty heavy handed approach, but I'm not convinced Google has a history of this. > What does it even mean for code in a packaged program to be "visible"? It should be invisible! That's the whole point of packaging! Perhaps you are assuming this is the play store instead of the chrome web store? Web store apps are just web pages. They want to ensure the packages are easy to inspect and understand. It's a rule that appears to be attempting to maintain open web standards. Given that this is HN, I assume that's enough of a justification for anyone reading this comment.
  - emodendroket 11y ago
    It's hard to wonder if Google doesn't "have a history" when they banned all ad blockers from the Play Store and are (maybe) rejecting ad blockers from the Chrome Web store for vague technical reasons, particularly when their business model revolves around ads.
AdmiralAsshat 11y ago
"Where possible, make as much of your code visible in the package as you can. If some of your app's logic is hidden and it appears to be suspicious, we may remove it." This is the policy it "broke" apparently. Despite the entire app being open source and commented, someone at Google could not understand his code and hence found it obfuscated or "suspicious".
- drzaiusapelord 11y ago
  Textbook harassment here. Google is upset these guys are hurting ad impressions. I wonder if this is the beginning of an ad blocking backlash.
  - wutbrodo 11y ago
    That's an enormous tinfoil hat, even by hn standards
  - manigandham 11y ago
    What's "textbook" about it? Google could eliminate all adblocking extensions from the chrome store instantly if they wanted to - but they haven't. This seems like, and now proven to be, just a mistake.
jug 11y ago
"Please reply to this email for issues regarding this item removal." Maybe he could try that?
- jessaustin 11y ago
  Google is famous for never responding to anything. Which is fine; that's their business model. However, it does mean that if they wanted to communicate, they would have included the full description of the issues, in the email that notified him of the existence of the issues. It's not like they sent him a tweet. Emails can include lots of detail.
  - takeda 11y ago
    Well, you are guaranteed they won't respond if you don't send a email to them.
  - manigandham 11y ago
    I've sent dozens of emails to Google as both a general consumer and a business vendor. I've always gotten a response.
valarauca1 11y ago
The core reasons appears: >"Where possible, make as much of your code visible in the package as you can. If some of your app's logic is hidden and it appears to be suspicious, we may remove it." Which maybe true, but odd as the project is publicly hosted freeware. It could be a case of simply an automatic algorithm making an incorrect call. Its also worth considering Google's primary revenue stream is advertisement, which uBlock attempts to subvert to a degree.
- rhaps0dy 11y ago
  Careful with words. It's not freeware, it's free software.
  - valarauca1 11y ago
    I'd just like to interject for a second...
t_fatus 11y ago
There are a bit less than 1000 lines changed from 1.2.0 to 1.3.2 (https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/compare/1.2.0...1.3.2 https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/compare/1.2.0...1.3.2) I'm pretty sure google's Chrome dev team could check them by hand in less than a day and be a little more specific on what is their real problem with this submission !
dchest 11y ago
Not the first time Chrome Web Store people mess with uBlock Origin: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/issues/50 https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/issues/50
weirdentropy 11y ago
I've switched over from ABP to UBlock Origin. UBO is so much faster than ABP, uses fewer resources, and does a better job. And, most importantly, they do not get in bed with the ad companies to arrange for acceptable ads. There are no acceptable ads in my view (no pun intended). I block ads precisely because they use my bandwidth, they are a vector for malware, they interfere with my viewing of websites, they track me (this should be illegal), many, many more bad things. In addition to UBlock Origin, I block DOM, HTTP/S referrer, CSS visited links (surfing history viewable by websites), block WebRTC (leaks private IP address schemas), and more. I have a right to a clutter-free Internet that is not tracking me, using my bandwidth without my consent, and doing everything to make money from me without my consent or sharing with me should it do so. No, thank you. I will continue to block all ads, tracking cookies, beacons, you name it. I somewhat enjoy the cold war between users and the ad companies.
- fsaintjacques 11y ago
  Second time I see your comment, would you care sharing how you accomplish all this?
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - weirdentropy 11y ago
    Sure. I use Firefox and install the following: - Disconnect - Ublock Origen (choose 3rd-Party block lists to suit.) - Privacy Badger (no set up, just install, it learns as you go) In Firefox, use about:config to change the following: - Toggle dom.storage.enabled to False - Toggle layout.css.visited_links_enabled to False - Toggle media.peerconnection.enabled to False - Toggle network.prefetch-next to False - Toggle network.http.sendReferrerHeader to 0 (zero) - Toggle network.http.sendSecureXSiteReferrer to False These settings have worked for me with no issues. I bank, do all manner of things online with no issues. I do, however, see no ads, no tracking, faster page loads, clean experience all around.
    - 11y ago
moomin 11y ago
That reminds me... installs uBlock Origin
bambax 11y ago
Besides findability, what benefits does the Chrome Web Store provide to extension developers? Does Chrome prevent or somehow limit the functionality of extensions that aren't coming from the store? (I developed a few Chrome extensions 5 years ago and used to distribute them "by hand" to users, but haven't much followed what has happened since).
- ivank 11y ago
  You can't install extensions "by hand" any more, unless you turn on developer mode. And then you see a nag screen every time you start Chrome. Unless you're on Linux. https://www.chromium.org/developers/extensions-deployment-faq#TOC-Why-do-I-see-a-bubble-about-Disable-developer-mode-extensions-when-loading-an-unpacked-extension-in-Windows-stable-beta-channels- https://www.chromium.org/developers/extensions-deployment-fa...
  - bambax 11y ago
    Thanks for the answer and the link; didn't know that (May 2015: it's recent...) Surprised by the downvotes, wasn't the question legitimate? Or is it obvious and old news for anyone but me...?
- dvh 11y ago
  What my predecessor said plus it comes with userbase. I made some extensions, never told anyone, one year later, poof, 700 users.
alex_marchant 11y ago
Looks like someone from Google noticed and apologized https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/issues/880#issuecomment-152184030 https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/issues/880#issuecomment-15....
audessuscest 11y ago
Solution: Firefox
- Aissen 11y ago
  Since it now requires extension signing they could decide to revoke any extension they decide. Of course the process is more open, but it's also a walled garden :-(
Aissen 11y ago
This is resolved now. Thanks sowbug ! Still worried about these "goofs" from walled gardens… Most of the time there is simply no way out for small developers.
minionslave 11y ago
If it goes against Google business model, I could see why they'd wanna see the source code. Maybe to serve adds that can bypass the algorithms.
chillydawg 11y ago
It was just sorted out. It'll be in the store within minutes apparently.
johnhattan 11y ago
Update: "We apologize that the update was rejected due to an snag in the review system. The updated item will be available in the Chrome Web Store within 30 minutes."
- danielbln 11y ago
  Just got the extension update notification, seems like update 1.3.2 has been released. Nothing like a top HN post to grease the wheels.
  - theshrike79 11y ago
    HN seems to be the official support channel for Google.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
KJasper 11y ago
And it's resolved: "Dear Developer, We apologize that the update was rejected due to an snag in the review system. The updated item will be available in the Chrome Web Store within 30 minutes."
amelius 11y ago
I think Hanlon's razor applies here: > Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
- webXL 11y ago
  I wonder if there's a razor for benefitting publicity-wise when this misattribution is made.
issaria 11y ago
The update is accepted as well now. https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/issues/880#issuecomment-152195504 https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/issues/880#issuecomment-15...
wnevets 11y ago
>Dear Developer, >We apologize that the update was rejected due to an snag >in the review system. The updated item will be available >in the Chrome Web Store within 30 minutes. >Thank you for your cooperation, >Google Chrome Web Store team so a non story?
- Touche 11y ago
  That happened after this being at the top of HN.
server_bot 11y ago
I work at a young startup (redmorph.com) building a similar privacy extension, and we've run into the exact same problem multiple times. While I understand that Google has a large volume of code to review, even an automated analysis tool could split out a line number and filename to reduce the guesswork :P I have to add my shameless pitch to this thread, and I hope that fellow builders/entrepreneurs/startup-ers will emphasize with the fight to get attention/users: uBlock is a great tool but it doesn't offer any network-level services, so you're still exposing IP/geo-location and potentially content sent over HTTP (as opposed to HTTPS). My company, RedMorph, will soon offer in-extension encrypted (AES-256) proxy at the first paid tier (we need to charge to cover infrastructure cost, it's still in beta) but you can download our free tracker blocking extension in the meantime. It's designed with usability in mind, so the average user can "plug-and-play". We're especially interested in empowering non-technical parents and children. I'll be adding uBlock to this comparison soon: https://redmorph.com/articles/proof-in-the-packet.html https://redmorph.com/articles/proof-in-the-packet.html Thanks for your time, I appreciate thoughts and feedback!
Ch_livecodingtv 11y ago
I think Google sometimes is vague when it comes to bans and take downs. There are times they don't give clear reason which part exactly of their rules and regulation was being violated. It then becomes a puzzle to solve otherwise it's a sad story for content owners.

323 points by vzjrz 11y ago

cven714 11y ago

Will this affect those of us who already have it installed?

teamhappy 11y ago
Nope.
lettergram 11y ago
That should be fine. Only the update was rejected
baldfat 11y ago
From the developer above: > However the email I received is titled "Chrome Web Store: Removal notification for uBlock Origin".
Nexxxeh 11y ago
In the immediate term, no, it shouldn't. The update was rejected, but the already published version remains up. There's nothing catastrophic in the earlier version. In the medium term, yes, because if this issues can't be resolved then the Chrome version will be stuck on that version and lag behind other browsers. And while there are hoops you can jump through, if it's not approved on the Chrome Web Store, it's not getting in your Chrome. On the plus side, sounds like good news for Opera.
- caoilte 11y ago
  Can you not install extensions directly any more?
  - Nexxxeh 11y ago
    Not in the Stable or Beta channels of Chrome. (There may be a way of re-enabling it, but frankly, Opera or something Chromium based.) https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/2811969?hl=en-GB https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/2811969?hl=en-GB
Killswitch 11y ago
Shouldn't but if it's taken down, you can just download the code from the repo and install it using developer mode.

eli 11y ago

Headline is wrong. An update to the plugin was rejected (with the option to resubmit), but the previous version is clearly still in the store: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ublock-origin/cjpalhdlnbpafiamejdnhcphjbkeiagm?hl=en https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ublock-origin/cjpa... I empathize with the developer, but Occam's Razor suggests this isn't anything more than a typically crummy vague Walled Garden app store rejection. I'd take their advice and re-submit.

gorhill 11y ago
Yes, it still is in the store as of now. However the email I received is titled "Chrome Web Store: Removal notification for uBlock Origin". In any case, it's just impossible for me to figure what is the issue. I could spend a inordinate amount of time guess-shuffling code around for no result. Assuming the email title is misleading -- let's say uBlock Origin won't be removed from the Chrome store, there is nothing special in 1.3.2 compared to any other releases, and from the look of it I won't ever be able to fix whatever is deemed wrong without specifics, and as a consequence, no updates lead to abandonware. Edit: I will add that with Firefox and Opera, there has always been communication with specifics when I was asked to fix something, and I always did fix as demanded (or suggested).
- maxerickson 11y ago
  Are the block lists maybe considered code? Updating them at first start would fit the description of not having them visible in the package.
  - gorhill 11y ago
    The filter lists which are selected by default are part of the package. An updated versions of these lists is progressively downloaded a few minutes after first install. But this has been like this since forever now, this is not new. This demonstrates the problem here, we are left to speculate endlessly about what the is the issue(s) according to the Chrome store.

cballard 11y ago

Apps that do controversial things with respect to Apple or Google seem to get rejected for seemingly random technical reasons a lot. What does it even mean for code in a packaged program to be "visible"? It should be invisible! That's the whole point of packaging!

sqldba 11y ago
Yes. It's bad news and exactly why free software supporters need to keep fighting the good fight and spreading the word. We can't allow technical oligarchies control over what we do with our computing, enacting stupid policies, with no outside visibility or accountability.
eli 11y ago
Apps that do non-controversial things get rejected for seemingly random technical reasons a lot too.
deelowe 11y ago
> Apps that do controversial things with respect to Apple or Google seem to get rejected for seemingly random technical reasons a lot. This is regarding the chrome web store, not the play store. Also, I'm aware of Apple taking a pretty heavy handed approach, but I'm not convinced Google has a history of this. > What does it even mean for code in a packaged program to be "visible"? It should be invisible! That's the whole point of packaging! Perhaps you are assuming this is the play store instead of the chrome web store? Web store apps are just web pages. They want to ensure the packages are easy to inspect and understand. It's a rule that appears to be attempting to maintain open web standards. Given that this is HN, I assume that's enough of a justification for anyone reading this comment.
- emodendroket 11y ago
  It's hard to wonder if Google doesn't "have a history" when they banned all ad blockers from the Play Store and are (maybe) rejecting ad blockers from the Chrome Web store for vague technical reasons, particularly when their business model revolves around ads.

AdmiralAsshat 11y ago

"Where possible, make as much of your code visible in the package as you can. If some of your app's logic is hidden and it appears to be suspicious, we may remove it." This is the policy it "broke" apparently. Despite the entire app being open source and commented, someone at Google could not understand his code and hence found it obfuscated or "suspicious".

drzaiusapelord 11y ago
Textbook harassment here. Google is upset these guys are hurting ad impressions. I wonder if this is the beginning of an ad blocking backlash.
- wutbrodo 11y ago
  That's an enormous tinfoil hat, even by hn standards
- manigandham 11y ago
  What's "textbook" about it? Google could eliminate all adblocking extensions from the chrome store instantly if they wanted to - but they haven't. This seems like, and now proven to be, just a mistake.

jug 11y ago

"Please reply to this email for issues regarding this item removal." Maybe he could try that?

jessaustin 11y ago
Google is famous for never responding to anything. Which is fine; that's their business model. However, it does mean that if they wanted to communicate, they would have included the full description of the issues, in the email that notified him of the existence of the issues. It's not like they sent him a tweet. Emails can include lots of detail.
- takeda 11y ago
  Well, you are guaranteed they won't respond if you don't send a email to them.
- manigandham 11y ago
  I've sent dozens of emails to Google as both a general consumer and a business vendor. I've always gotten a response.

valarauca1 11y ago

The core reasons appears: >"Where possible, make as much of your code visible in the package as you can. If some of your app's logic is hidden and it appears to be suspicious, we may remove it." Which maybe true, but odd as the project is publicly hosted freeware. It could be a case of simply an automatic algorithm making an incorrect call. Its also worth considering Google's primary revenue stream is advertisement, which uBlock attempts to subvert to a degree.

rhaps0dy 11y ago
Careful with words. It's not freeware, it's free software.
- valarauca1 11y ago
  I'd just like to interject for a second...

t_fatus 11y ago

There are a bit less than 1000 lines changed from 1.2.0 to 1.3.2 (https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/compare/1.2.0...1.3.2 https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/compare/1.2.0...1.3.2) I'm pretty sure google's Chrome dev team could check them by hand in less than a day and be a little more specific on what is their real problem with this submission !

dchest 11y ago

Not the first time Chrome Web Store people mess with uBlock Origin: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/issues/50 https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/issues/50

weirdentropy 11y ago

I've switched over from ABP to UBlock Origin. UBO is so much faster than ABP, uses fewer resources, and does a better job. And, most importantly, they do not get in bed with the ad companies to arrange for acceptable ads. There are no acceptable ads in my view (no pun intended). I block ads precisely because they use my bandwidth, they are a vector for malware, they interfere with my viewing of websites, they track me (this should be illegal), many, many more bad things. In addition to UBlock Origin, I block DOM, HTTP/S referrer, CSS visited links (surfing history viewable by websites), block WebRTC (leaks private IP address schemas), and more. I have a right to a clutter-free Internet that is not tracking me, using my bandwidth without my consent, and doing everything to make money from me without my consent or sharing with me should it do so. No, thank you. I will continue to block all ads, tracking cookies, beacons, you name it. I somewhat enjoy the cold war between users and the ad companies.

fsaintjacques 11y ago
Second time I see your comment, would you care sharing how you accomplish all this?
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- weirdentropy 11y ago
  Sure. I use Firefox and install the following: - Disconnect - Ublock Origen (choose 3rd-Party block lists to suit.) - Privacy Badger (no set up, just install, it learns as you go) In Firefox, use about:config to change the following: - Toggle dom.storage.enabled to False - Toggle layout.css.visited_links_enabled to False - Toggle media.peerconnection.enabled to False - Toggle network.prefetch-next to False - Toggle network.http.sendReferrerHeader to 0 (zero) - Toggle network.http.sendSecureXSiteReferrer to False These settings have worked for me with no issues. I bank, do all manner of things online with no issues. I do, however, see no ads, no tracking, faster page loads, clean experience all around.
  - 11y ago

moomin 11y ago

That reminds me... installs uBlock Origin

bambax 11y ago

Besides findability, what benefits does the Chrome Web Store provide to extension developers? Does Chrome prevent or somehow limit the functionality of extensions that aren't coming from the store? (I developed a few Chrome extensions 5 years ago and used to distribute them "by hand" to users, but haven't much followed what has happened since).

ivank 11y ago
You can't install extensions "by hand" any more, unless you turn on developer mode. And then you see a nag screen every time you start Chrome. Unless you're on Linux. https://www.chromium.org/developers/extensions-deployment-faq#TOC-Why-do-I-see-a-bubble-about-Disable-developer-mode-extensions-when-loading-an-unpacked-extension-in-Windows-stable-beta-channels- https://www.chromium.org/developers/extensions-deployment-fa...
- bambax 11y ago
  Thanks for the answer and the link; didn't know that (May 2015: it's recent...) Surprised by the downvotes, wasn't the question legitimate? Or is it obvious and old news for anyone but me...?
dvh 11y ago
What my predecessor said plus it comes with userbase. I made some extensions, never told anyone, one year later, poof, 700 users.

alex_marchant 11y ago

Looks like someone from Google noticed and apologized https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/issues/880#issuecomment-152184030 https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/issues/880#issuecomment-15....

audessuscest 11y ago

Solution: Firefox

Aissen 11y ago
Since it now requires extension signing they could decide to revoke any extension they decide. Of course the process is more open, but it's also a walled garden :-(

Aissen 11y ago

This is resolved now. Thanks sowbug ! Still worried about these "goofs" from walled gardens… Most of the time there is simply no way out for small developers.

minionslave 11y ago

If it goes against Google business model, I could see why they'd wanna see the source code. Maybe to serve adds that can bypass the algorithms.

chillydawg 11y ago

It was just sorted out. It'll be in the store within minutes apparently.

johnhattan 11y ago

Update: "We apologize that the update was rejected due to an snag in the review system. The updated item will be available in the Chrome Web Store within 30 minutes."

danielbln 11y ago
Just got the extension update notification, seems like update 1.3.2 has been released. Nothing like a top HN post to grease the wheels.
- theshrike79 11y ago
  HN seems to be the official support channel for Google.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

KJasper 11y ago

And it's resolved: "Dear Developer, We apologize that the update was rejected due to an snag in the review system. The updated item will be available in the Chrome Web Store within 30 minutes."

amelius 11y ago

I think Hanlon's razor applies here: > Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

webXL 11y ago
I wonder if there's a razor for benefitting publicity-wise when this misattribution is made.

issaria 11y ago

The update is accepted as well now. https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/issues/880#issuecomment-152195504 https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/issues/880#issuecomment-15...

wnevets 11y ago

>Dear Developer, >We apologize that the update was rejected due to an snag >in the review system. The updated item will be available >in the Chrome Web Store within 30 minutes. >Thank you for your cooperation, >Google Chrome Web Store team so a non story?

Touche 11y ago
That happened after this being at the top of HN.

server_bot 11y ago

I work at a young startup (redmorph.com) building a similar privacy extension, and we've run into the exact same problem multiple times. While I understand that Google has a large volume of code to review, even an automated analysis tool could split out a line number and filename to reduce the guesswork :P I have to add my shameless pitch to this thread, and I hope that fellow builders/entrepreneurs/startup-ers will emphasize with the fight to get attention/users: uBlock is a great tool but it doesn't offer any network-level services, so you're still exposing IP/geo-location and potentially content sent over HTTP (as opposed to HTTPS). My company, RedMorph, will soon offer in-extension encrypted (AES-256) proxy at the first paid tier (we need to charge to cover infrastructure cost, it's still in beta) but you can download our free tracker blocking extension in the meantime. It's designed with usability in mind, so the average user can "plug-and-play". We're especially interested in empowering non-technical parents and children. I'll be adding uBlock to this comparison soon: https://redmorph.com/articles/proof-in-the-packet.html https://redmorph.com/articles/proof-in-the-packet.html Thanks for your time, I appreciate thoughts and feedback!

Ch_livecodingtv 11y ago

I think Google sometimes is vague when it comes to bans and take downs. There are times they don't give clear reason which part exactly of their rules and regulation was being violated. It then becomes a puzzle to solve otherwise it's a sad story for content owners.