3 ms·
But it looks like they didn't "ban" it, they just don't want to host it on their store [1]. As long as they don't refuse to sign these "problematic" add-ons, t
by jackewiehose 7y ago
But it looks like they didn't "ban" it, they just don't want to host it
on their store [1]. As long as they don't refuse to sign these
"problematic" add-ons, this is fine (although it's worrying that they
are able to do so because of this signing-required-crap).
[1]: https://reclaimthenet.org/firefox-rejects-free-speech-bans-free-speech-commenting-plugin-dissenter-from-its-extensions-gallery https://reclaimthenet.org/firefox-rejects-free-speech-bans-f...
- the_jeremy 7y agoAt least one extension maintainer (yappy, a pushbullet alternative) says that they are unable to sign their extension because of the 3rd party library they use, so while they have both firefox and chrome extensions, only the chrome one works.
- jackewiehose 7y agoThat would be very disappointing from mozilla! I only found a support-thread from yappy in 2016 but if this is still up-to-date there should be an outrage on HN's frontpage. I also made a simple, private(!) extension before I learned about the signing-requirement and that it won't work without uploading it. So I canceled my career as an extension-writer and just went to bed angry. They really fucked this up (without even mentioning the "armag-addon").