3 ms·

> uBlock Origin is blocking ublock.org on the basis of it being malware. Are you saying it's not actually a malware risk, and it's really on Origin's blocklist

by _qulr 6y ago

> uBlock Origin is blocking ublock.org on the basis of it being malware. Are you saying it's not actually a malware risk, and it's really on Origin's blocklist for some totally unrelated reason? We don't have to speculate. The reason is right here, and it's not because of malware. https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-is-completely-unrelated-to-the-web-site-ublock.org https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-is-comp... If it were malware, then why would it still be in the Chrome Web Store? Google reviews every extension update, and also has the power to remove extensions from the store, regardless of Manifest v3. It's also important to note that Manifest v3 only affects the content blocking capability of extensions. Extensions that are not content blockers still have extremely powerful capabilities that could be abused to capture user data or otherwise do harm. And those extensions can change ownership too. Manifest v3 is not even remotely close to a solution to this general problem.

jsnell 6y ago
This is what uBlock Origin tells me when I try to visit the ublock.org page: "Found in: uBlock filters – Badware risks". To repeat: I am not talking about Manifest v3. I was commenting on how ridiculous it is to say that we trust X to not do Y, when X already did Y once before.
- _qulr 6y ago
  Well, that seems to be more the result of a personal grudge by gorhill than anything else. He didn't like that ublock.org was soliciting donations. uBlock isn't literally malware or much different from many other ad blockers out there. To be clear though, gorhill didn't "sell out". He got tired of answering support requests, so he turned the repository over to someone else. To be sure, his trust in that other person was misplaced. But in response, gorhill didn't sit idly by, he forked uBlock into uBlock Origin. All of this was done for free, with no compensation for work.
  - gorhill 6y ago
    It's not a personal grudge, and I am not the one who added that filter in the first place[1], though I did not oppose the filter because I have come across numerous instances of people thinking that ublock.org was related to uBO[2]. * * * [1] https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uAssets/commit/82067d1ef33702fd1abd12fd31a0336bac28c41d https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uAssets/commit/82067d1ef3370... [2] https://twitter.com/gorhill/status/1035155281729216514 https://twitter.com/gorhill/status/1035155281729216514
    - _qulr 6y ago
      Thanks for the clarification, and sorry about the misunderstanding! My overall point is that policing the Chrome Web Store, which is Google's responsibility, is a separate issue and not necessarily relevant to Manifest v3. If there were a malware extension in the Chrome Web Store today with 800K users, then Google ought to remove it today and doesn't need to wait for Manifest v3 for that. In fact, Google seems to indicate that v2 will continue to be supported for at least a year, so extensions using that API will continue to be in the Chrome Web Store for quite some time. The whole issue of transfer of ownership of extensions is a red herring as far as Manifest v3 is concerned.

by _qulr 6y ago

jsnell 6y ago

This is what uBlock Origin tells me when I try to visit the ublock.org page: "Found in: uBlock filters – Badware risks". To repeat: I am not talking about Manifest v3. I was commenting on how ridiculous it is to say that we trust X to not do Y, when X already did Y once before.

_qulr 6y ago
Well, that seems to be more the result of a personal grudge by gorhill than anything else. He didn't like that ublock.org was soliciting donations. uBlock isn't literally malware or much different from many other ad blockers out there. To be clear though, gorhill didn't "sell out". He got tired of answering support requests, so he turned the repository over to someone else. To be sure, his trust in that other person was misplaced. But in response, gorhill didn't sit idly by, he forked uBlock into uBlock Origin. All of this was done for free, with no compensation for work.
- gorhill 6y ago
  It's not a personal grudge, and I am not the one who added that filter in the first place[1], though I did not oppose the filter because I have come across numerous instances of people thinking that ublock.org was related to uBO[2]. * * * [1] https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uAssets/commit/82067d1ef33702fd1abd12fd31a0336bac28c41d https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uAssets/commit/82067d1ef3370... [2] https://twitter.com/gorhill/status/1035155281729216514 https://twitter.com/gorhill/status/1035155281729216514
  - _qulr 6y ago
    Thanks for the clarification, and sorry about the misunderstanding! My overall point is that policing the Chrome Web Store, which is Google's responsibility, is a separate issue and not necessarily relevant to Manifest v3. If there were a malware extension in the Chrome Web Store today with 800K users, then Google ought to remove it today and doesn't need to wait for Manifest v3 for that. In fact, Google seems to indicate that v2 will continue to be supported for at least a year, so extensions using that API will continue to be in the Chrome Web Store for quite some time. The whole issue of transfer of ownership of extensions is a red herring as far as Manifest v3 is concerned.