4 ms·

The worst bit here is that they aren't explaining exactly which part of the ToS is being violated, and what needs to be done to fix it...

fwn 8y ago
A large part of corporate platform power is due to the ambiguity in decision making arising from the absence of clear and transparent processes or accountability regarding how the rules are applied. That's just a giant gateway for despotism.
- dao- 8y ago
  It's unlikely that there's a corporate decision behind this. I wouldn't even call this a corporate platform. Let me copy-paste a comment from further below that deserves more attention: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18568302 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18568302 > Here is what the creator actually said > >One of the community reviewers removed it from the store claiming it violated the ToS, which is BS. The ToS never mentions the word paywall once. Please support me in appealing! https://wiki.mozilla.org/Add-ons#Getting_in_touch https://wiki.mozilla.org/Add-ons#Getting_in_touch > Which sounds more like a zealous community member than Mozilla taking a position.
  - fwn 8y ago
    I didn't want to imply a corporate decision behind this specific case. Corporate power arises through the capability alone, not necessarily its frequent execution. I think that Mozilla is actually a great company to demonstrate how responsible platforms could operate. Past examples might be Pockets non cloud based recommendation engine or their encrypted user account setup.
ghostly_s 8y ago
Aren't they? The only real info I'm finding here is the terse comment from the dev in this thread claiming it was removed for vague "violated the ToS" reasons, but they have not shared the actual wording from the reviewer. It also looks like they have not even initiated voicing this objection to the ruling on the add-on developer forum. Directing your Github issue readers to spam the add-on support channels without providing them any real context seems pretty over the top, to me.
efreak 8y ago
According to an issue for a different/similar addon[0] that got removed: > "It appears that your Add-on violates the Firefox Add-on Distribution Agreement and the Conditions of Use. Both prohibit Add-ons that violate the law. Your Add-on appears to be designed and promoted to allow users to circumvent paywalls, which is illegal. ... > We are responding to a specific complaint that named multiple paywall bypassing add-ons. It did not target only your add-on. [0]: https://github.com/nextgens/anti-paywall/issues/109#issuecomment-441097828 https://github.com/nextgens/anti-paywall/issues/109#issuecom...

fwn 8y ago

A large part of corporate platform power is due to the ambiguity in decision making arising from the absence of clear and transparent processes or accountability regarding how the rules are applied. That's just a giant gateway for despotism.

dao- 8y ago
It's unlikely that there's a corporate decision behind this. I wouldn't even call this a corporate platform. Let me copy-paste a comment from further below that deserves more attention: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18568302 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18568302 > Here is what the creator actually said > >One of the community reviewers removed it from the store claiming it violated the ToS, which is BS. The ToS never mentions the word paywall once. Please support me in appealing! https://wiki.mozilla.org/Add-ons#Getting_in_touch https://wiki.mozilla.org/Add-ons#Getting_in_touch > Which sounds more like a zealous community member than Mozilla taking a position.
- fwn 8y ago
  I didn't want to imply a corporate decision behind this specific case. Corporate power arises through the capability alone, not necessarily its frequent execution. I think that Mozilla is actually a great company to demonstrate how responsible platforms could operate. Past examples might be Pockets non cloud based recommendation engine or their encrypted user account setup.

ghostly_s 8y ago

Aren't they? The only real info I'm finding here is the terse comment from the dev in this thread claiming it was removed for vague "violated the ToS" reasons, but they have not shared the actual wording from the reviewer. It also looks like they have not even initiated voicing this objection to the ruling on the add-on developer forum. Directing your Github issue readers to spam the add-on support channels without providing them any real context seems pretty over the top, to me.

efreak 8y ago

According to an issue for a different/similar addon[0] that got removed: > "It appears that your Add-on violates the Firefox Add-on Distribution Agreement and the Conditions of Use. Both prohibit Add-ons that violate the law. Your Add-on appears to be designed and promoted to allow users to circumvent paywalls, which is illegal. ... > We are responding to a specific complaint that named multiple paywall bypassing add-ons. It did not target only your add-on. [0]: https://github.com/nextgens/anti-paywall/issues/109#issuecomment-441097828 https://github.com/nextgens/anti-paywall/issues/109#issuecom...