10 ms·

Mozilla silently bans 2 anti-state-censorship add-ons in Russia

218 points by ilyaigpetrov 2y ago

hexage1814 2y ago
This is a new low for Mozilla.
esullivan_moz 2y ago
Hello folks, latest update available here: https://discourse.mozilla.org/t/the-censorship-circumvention-extension-has-disappeared-from-the-russian-version-of-mozilla-addons/130914/38 https://discourse.mozilla.org/t/the-censorship-circumvention...
astiela 2y ago
Mozilla shared this yesterday in the ama Here's the statement we're sharing with the press: In alignment with our commitment to an open and accessible internet, Mozilla will reinstate previously restricted listings in Russia. Our initial decision to temporarily restrict these listings was made while we considered the regulatory environment in Russia and the potential risk to our community and staff. As outlined in our Manifesto, Mozilla's core principles emphasize the importance of an internet that is a global public resource, open and accessible to all. Users should be free to customize and enhance their online experience through add-ons without undue restrictions. By reinstating these add-ons, we reaffirm our dedication to: Openness: Promoting a free and open internet where users can shape their online experience. Accessibility: Ensuring that the internet remains a public resource accessible to everyone, regardless of geographical location. We remain committed to supporting our users in Russia and worldwide and will continue to advocate for an open and accessible internet for all.
ilyaigpetrov 2y ago
I'm the author of "Runet Censorship Bypass". We help Russians to circumvent state censorship while with some tricks the extension may also be used to bypass private discrimination or sanctions-based censorship. We received no notifications about this restriction. Waiting for the official statement or just any comment from Mozilla.
- beretguy 2y ago
  I hope you live outside of russia.
- rasengan 2y ago
  This is terrible. I really hope there's a good explanation and it's restored quickly.
- secondary_op 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - lesostep 2y ago
    As a russian I felt comfortable using this add-on and recommending it to others because it was closely associated with Roskomsvoboda organization that have a very strong reputation for fighting against different forms of state oppression. Please, do not imagine yourself in our shoes if you dont know their shape.
  - tasuki 2y ago
    Who would you trust then? Mozilla, to guard you against the content you should not be allowed to see? If I were either a Russian, living in Russia, or had any family or friends in Russia, and if I also wrote tools to circumvent Russian state censorship, I sure would want to stay pseudonymous!
eimrine 2y ago
The browser extension which might be useful only in Russia suddenly stopped being accessible from Russia? Seems like a possible source of income for the corporation.
clipsy 2y ago
This sort of thing is exactly why browser extensions never should have required Mozilla's "approval" in the first place; forcing people onto beta or developer builds to have proper control over their own software is an appalling failure to live up to their stated ideology. If they wanted to "protect" average users, they could have defaulted to only allowing approved extensions and made it clear how to opt out for users who wish to do so. This sort of condescending, controlling, anti-user behavior was one of the reasons I left Mozilla, and the politically/culturally difficult situations it puts them in are a bed they have, unfortunately, made for themselves.
- squigz 2y ago
  What other browser might you recommend other than Firefox?
  - im3w1l 2y ago
    The answer people don't want to hear is that the answer is to abandon the web. The standards are too complicated and evolve too fast. It costs too much. The bills have to be paid and that means everyone has to sell the users out "just a little bit, but at least we are better than the other guy".
  - clipsy 2y ago
    The depressing truth is I can't recommend anything. Firefox soft-forks can easily allow unrestricted use of web extensions, but I haven't kept up with which ones are popular and actively maintained so I can't recommend anything specific. If Mozilla ends up standing behind this decision I guess it'll be time to do some research.
    - sdk- 2y ago
      You can do the same with Firefox. Simply use Beta, Dev Edition or Nightly. The first two are very stable. You just need to flip `xpinstall.signatures.required` to `false` in about:config.
      - 2y ago
ta988 2y ago
Mozilla is starting to seriously have a long list of highly questionable if not directly user hostile behaviors. They are hiding behind the fact that they are the almost only viable alternative to the chrome ecosystem... But they may well loose that advantage. What should we think of their VPN they try to promote so much if they bow to Russian demands for blocking extensions...
- sdk- 2y ago
  Enlighten us. What's that long list of questionable behaviours?
  - 9991 2y ago
    The ones that angered me were the surveillance and the inclusion of closed source DRM. Enough to get me to switch to LibreWolf.
    - torstenvl 2y ago
      Don't forget the Mr. Robot malware.
    - arp242 2y ago
      > inclusion of closed source DRM Because what people really want is a browser that can't use Netflix or Spotify... Firefox would no longer exist today if they hadn't included DRM. Ideological purity is fun and all, but it's perhaps a good idea to occasionally recognize reality.
      - 9991 2y ago
        I would also never pay for DRMed media, so LibreWolf is a good fit for my use case. I don’t decide any one else’s use case.
    - phantomathkg 2y ago
      > inclusion of closed source DRM Do you think if DRM is not included, will Firefox still retain 3% usage across the world? https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share Let's put it bluntly, but libre principle does not live well with consumerism of the modern world.
cbsks 2y ago
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Add-ons/Extension_Signing https://wiki.mozilla.org/Add-ons/Extension_Signing > Is this a way for Mozilla to censor add-ons they don't like, enforce copyright, government demands, etc.? > No, the purpose of this is to protect users from malicious add-ons. We have a set of guidelines (https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Add-ons/AMO/Policy/Reviews https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Add-ons/AMO/Policy/Revie...) for when it is appropriate to blocklist an add-on and have refused multiple times to block for other reasons. Is Mozilla refusing to sign the add-on? Or just refusing to host it on addons.mozilla.org? There's a big difference. If the extension can still be signed, it's easy to install on production Firefox builds. If it can't be signed, then it can only be installed on Nightly or Developer builds with xpinstall.signatures.required disabled in about:config.
- cbsks 2y ago
  Looks like the extensions are still available in the US: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/censor-tracker/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/censor-tracke... https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%85%D0%BE%D0%B4-%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%BA%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%BA-%D1%80%D1%83%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%B0/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/%D0%BE%D0%B1%... So it looks like they are still signed, but they are not available on amo in Russia. The extensions can still be installed on production Firefox builds if they are hosted elsewhere, such as: Runet Censorship Bypass: https://files.catbox.moe/g7mww2.xpi https://files.catbox.moe/g7mww2.xpi Censor Tracker: https://files.catbox.moe/37grym.xpi https://files.catbox.moe/37grym.xpi
  - ErikBjare 2y ago
    Publishing a Mozilla-signed XPI outside of AMO is a breach of ToS, and can lead to being removed from the AMO.
    - phoe-krk 2y ago
      So posting the contents of my ~/.mozilla/firefox/default/extensions/ on GitHub is going to remove all of them from the store? Goodness, I wonder why no one thought of that until now.
nomilk 2y ago
Assuming the bans are at Russia's request, what's the worst Russia could do if Mozilla refused to comply? Russia could block mozilla.org (in which case 1000s of clones would likely emerge). Mozilla is a not for profit. Why not simply ignore such requests..
- newages 2y ago
  [flagged]
- tcmart14 2y ago
  This would be just speculation, and I could be way off base. This would also be assuming that Mozilla is looking out for the best interest of users, which may or may not be the case. We saw that when companies like McDonalds could no longer operate in Russia, Russia essentially took the McDonalds and created a knock-off. If Russia decided to ban Firefox, they may just fire up a knock off and sell it to the populace as Mozilla is an evil American corporation so they have created RuskieFox and all that national pride stuff. Would tech saavy people trust the Russian knock off? My guess is the tech saavy people won't and will find ways to get firefox from Mozilla. But the non-tech saavy? Probably not. From this, if we assume Mozilla is doing what it can to protect users (which may or may not be the case), it would be better to comply but Russians get official builds of Firefox than being banned and the Russian government replacing Firefox with their own build.
  - itvision 2y ago
    There's already a Yandex browser, there's no need for a Firefox knock-off. > Would tech saavy people trust the Russian knock off? No one with a single brain cell uses the Yandex web browser. It's akin to giving the Russian authorities full access to your entire web presence. > But the non-tech saavy? For those Firefox has never existed. Most people in Russia use: Yandex web browser, Opera or Google Chrome. > From this, if we assume Mozilla is doing what it can to protect users (which may or may not be the case), it would be better to comply but Russians get official builds of Firefox than being banned and the Russian government replacing Firefox with their own build. Mozilla loses nothing from not complying but gains reputation and trust of not sharing the bed with Putin.
Sk8Wo 2y ago
ublock origin is blocked in china, in same way. otherwise the whole amo would be blocked. see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30740366 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30740366
- anon66669938144 2y ago
  that's not even relevant since couldn't you just run adblocking dns script as cronjob with list of ad domains like here? https://raw.githubusercontent.com/StevenBlack/hosts/master/hosts https://raw.githubusercontent.com/StevenBlack/hosts/master/h... how china blocks that? ublock sucks anyway if you're using 127.0.0.1:53 with unbound/dnscrypt or something
  - hnarn 2y ago
    ublock blocks html element in a browser, dns blacklists stop resolution. they’re clearly not the same.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
lostmsu 2y ago
Pecunia non olet
cute_boi 2y ago
And you cannot install dev extension in mozilla like chrome without uploading in addons hub. Mozilla is becoming to bad these days.
- poisonborz 2y ago
  Not true, you can simply use an xpi file, without signature even when a flag is set.
  - yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
    https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/add-on-signing-in-firefox#w_what-are-my-options-if-i-want-to-use-an-unsigned-add-on-advanced-users https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/add-on-signing-in-firef... seems to say that the normal release of Firefox can't install unsigned XPIs
    - poisonborz 2y ago
      Sorry, dev and nightly, but that doesnt impact browser experience otherwise. https://wiki.mozilla.org/Add-ons/Extension_Signing#FAQ https://wiki.mozilla.org/Add-ons/Extension_Signing#FAQ
      - yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
        Using pre-release versions absolutely is different
    - RunningDroid 2y ago
      If you modify the AppConstants file (inside omni.ja) you can install unsigned extensions anyway: https://gist.github.com/TheBrokenRail/c43bf0f07f4860adac2631a1bd9e4136 https://gist.github.com/TheBrokenRail/c43bf0f07f4860adac2631...
      - yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
        That link appears to describe a process for patching the Firefox package. That does not strike me as a reasonable solution.
Jiahang 2y ago
uBlock Origin is ban in china
hi-v-rocknroll 2y ago
MAANG and quasi-nonprofit husks of former megacorps aren't your friends. They tend to do the bidding of authoritarian regimes, enable genocides like Myanmar, and disclose metadata facilitating the targeting of civilians.
Employee6645 2y ago
Mozilla does all sorts of problematic things all the time, but none of them have been as ethically terrible as this. I hope this is a temporary misunderstanding.
python273 2y ago
With all the criticism of Mozilla here, it wouldn't be any help to keep these few extensions available, and get the whole website blocked. It's possible to get addons signed and distribute it on other websites. On the other hand, when Apple complies with demands, there's no way to install apps anymore.
SergeAx 2y ago
Is there a way to side-load Mozilla extensions and circumvent their store? We see now that any central-authority store is a net negative for online freedoms and rights.
- itvision 2y ago
  Firefox will happily install anything signed by Mozilla. You just have to download it somewhere.
smsm42 2y ago
Does Mozilla have any assets or workers located in Russia? If yes, this could be the reason, as the censors won't hesitate to go after them, and the law in Russia is whatever Kremlin says it is. If there aren't then it's just unbelievable cowardice which lacks any explanation.
- itvision 2y ago
  > Does Mozilla have any assets or workers located in Russia? Nothing.
  - xorofevil 2y ago
    You know where all of Mozilla's 1000+ employees are right now? Good for you.
    - itvision 2y ago
      https://discourse.mozilla.org/t/the-censorship-circumvention-extension-has-disappeared-from-the-russian-version-of-mozilla-addons/130914/38 https://discourse.mozilla.org/t/the-censorship-circumvention...
  - smsm42 2y ago
    Then I suspect it's just cowardice.
paulcarroty 2y ago
Mozilla: we're all for freedom & users privacy, but Putins regime pays us too much money!

218 points by ilyaigpetrov 2y ago

This is a new low for Mozilla.

Hello folks, latest update available here: https://discourse.mozilla.org/t/the-censorship-circumvention-extension-has-disappeared-from-the-russian-version-of-mozilla-addons/130914/38 https://discourse.mozilla.org/t/the-censorship-circumvention...

astiela 2y ago

Mozilla shared this yesterday in the ama Here's the statement we're sharing with the press: In alignment with our commitment to an open and accessible internet, Mozilla will reinstate previously restricted listings in Russia. Our initial decision to temporarily restrict these listings was made while we considered the regulatory environment in Russia and the potential risk to our community and staff. As outlined in our Manifesto, Mozilla's core principles emphasize the importance of an internet that is a global public resource, open and accessible to all. Users should be free to customize and enhance their online experience through add-ons without undue restrictions. By reinstating these add-ons, we reaffirm our dedication to: Openness: Promoting a free and open internet where users can shape their online experience. Accessibility: Ensuring that the internet remains a public resource accessible to everyone, regardless of geographical location. We remain committed to supporting our users in Russia and worldwide and will continue to advocate for an open and accessible internet for all.

ilyaigpetrov 2y ago

I'm the author of "Runet Censorship Bypass". We help Russians to circumvent state censorship while with some tricks the extension may also be used to bypass private discrimination or sanctions-based censorship. We received no notifications about this restriction. Waiting for the official statement or just any comment from Mozilla.

beretguy 2y ago
I hope you live outside of russia.
rasengan 2y ago
This is terrible. I really hope there's a good explanation and it's restored quickly.
secondary_op 2y ago
[flagged]
- lesostep 2y ago
  As a russian I felt comfortable using this add-on and recommending it to others because it was closely associated with Roskomsvoboda organization that have a very strong reputation for fighting against different forms of state oppression. Please, do not imagine yourself in our shoes if you dont know their shape.
- tasuki 2y ago
  Who would you trust then? Mozilla, to guard you against the content you should not be allowed to see? If I were either a Russian, living in Russia, or had any family or friends in Russia, and if I also wrote tools to circumvent Russian state censorship, I sure would want to stay pseudonymous!

eimrine 2y ago

The browser extension which might be useful only in Russia suddenly stopped being accessible from Russia? Seems like a possible source of income for the corporation.

clipsy 2y ago

This sort of thing is exactly why browser extensions never should have required Mozilla's "approval" in the first place; forcing people onto beta or developer builds to have proper control over their own software is an appalling failure to live up to their stated ideology. If they wanted to "protect" average users, they could have defaulted to only allowing approved extensions and made it clear how to opt out for users who wish to do so. This sort of condescending, controlling, anti-user behavior was one of the reasons I left Mozilla, and the politically/culturally difficult situations it puts them in are a bed they have, unfortunately, made for themselves.

squigz 2y ago
What other browser might you recommend other than Firefox?
- im3w1l 2y ago
  The answer people don't want to hear is that the answer is to abandon the web. The standards are too complicated and evolve too fast. It costs too much. The bills have to be paid and that means everyone has to sell the users out "just a little bit, but at least we are better than the other guy".
- clipsy 2y ago
  The depressing truth is I can't recommend anything. Firefox soft-forks can easily allow unrestricted use of web extensions, but I haven't kept up with which ones are popular and actively maintained so I can't recommend anything specific. If Mozilla ends up standing behind this decision I guess it'll be time to do some research.
  - sdk- 2y ago
    You can do the same with Firefox. Simply use Beta, Dev Edition or Nightly. The first two are very stable. You just need to flip `xpinstall.signatures.required` to `false` in about:config.
    - 2y ago

ta988 2y ago

Mozilla is starting to seriously have a long list of highly questionable if not directly user hostile behaviors. They are hiding behind the fact that they are the almost only viable alternative to the chrome ecosystem... But they may well loose that advantage. What should we think of their VPN they try to promote so much if they bow to Russian demands for blocking extensions...

sdk- 2y ago
Enlighten us. What's that long list of questionable behaviours?
- 9991 2y ago
  The ones that angered me were the surveillance and the inclusion of closed source DRM. Enough to get me to switch to LibreWolf.
  - torstenvl 2y ago
    Don't forget the Mr. Robot malware.
  - arp242 2y ago
    > inclusion of closed source DRM Because what people really want is a browser that can't use Netflix or Spotify... Firefox would no longer exist today if they hadn't included DRM. Ideological purity is fun and all, but it's perhaps a good idea to occasionally recognize reality.
    - 9991 2y ago
      I would also never pay for DRMed media, so LibreWolf is a good fit for my use case. I don’t decide any one else’s use case.
  - phantomathkg 2y ago
    > inclusion of closed source DRM Do you think if DRM is not included, will Firefox still retain 3% usage across the world? https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share Let's put it bluntly, but libre principle does not live well with consumerism of the modern world.

cbsks 2y ago

https://wiki.mozilla.org/Add-ons/Extension_Signing https://wiki.mozilla.org/Add-ons/Extension_Signing > Is this a way for Mozilla to censor add-ons they don't like, enforce copyright, government demands, etc.? > No, the purpose of this is to protect users from malicious add-ons. We have a set of guidelines (https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Add-ons/AMO/Policy/Reviews https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Add-ons/AMO/Policy/Revie...) for when it is appropriate to blocklist an add-on and have refused multiple times to block for other reasons. Is Mozilla refusing to sign the add-on? Or just refusing to host it on addons.mozilla.org? There's a big difference. If the extension can still be signed, it's easy to install on production Firefox builds. If it can't be signed, then it can only be installed on Nightly or Developer builds with xpinstall.signatures.required disabled in about:config.

cbsks 2y ago
Looks like the extensions are still available in the US: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/censor-tracker/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/censor-tracke... https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%85%D0%BE%D0%B4-%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%BA%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%BA-%D1%80%D1%83%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%B0/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/%D0%BE%D0%B1%... So it looks like they are still signed, but they are not available on amo in Russia. The extensions can still be installed on production Firefox builds if they are hosted elsewhere, such as: Runet Censorship Bypass: https://files.catbox.moe/g7mww2.xpi https://files.catbox.moe/g7mww2.xpi Censor Tracker: https://files.catbox.moe/37grym.xpi https://files.catbox.moe/37grym.xpi
- ErikBjare 2y ago
  Publishing a Mozilla-signed XPI outside of AMO is a breach of ToS, and can lead to being removed from the AMO.
  - phoe-krk 2y ago
    So posting the contents of my ~/.mozilla/firefox/default/extensions/ on GitHub is going to remove all of them from the store? Goodness, I wonder why no one thought of that until now.

nomilk 2y ago

Assuming the bans are at Russia's request, what's the worst Russia could do if Mozilla refused to comply? Russia could block mozilla.org (in which case 1000s of clones would likely emerge). Mozilla is a not for profit. Why not simply ignore such requests..

newages 2y ago
[flagged]
tcmart14 2y ago
This would be just speculation, and I could be way off base. This would also be assuming that Mozilla is looking out for the best interest of users, which may or may not be the case. We saw that when companies like McDonalds could no longer operate in Russia, Russia essentially took the McDonalds and created a knock-off. If Russia decided to ban Firefox, they may just fire up a knock off and sell it to the populace as Mozilla is an evil American corporation so they have created RuskieFox and all that national pride stuff. Would tech saavy people trust the Russian knock off? My guess is the tech saavy people won't and will find ways to get firefox from Mozilla. But the non-tech saavy? Probably not. From this, if we assume Mozilla is doing what it can to protect users (which may or may not be the case), it would be better to comply but Russians get official builds of Firefox than being banned and the Russian government replacing Firefox with their own build.
- itvision 2y ago
  There's already a Yandex browser, there's no need for a Firefox knock-off. > Would tech saavy people trust the Russian knock off? No one with a single brain cell uses the Yandex web browser. It's akin to giving the Russian authorities full access to your entire web presence. > But the non-tech saavy? For those Firefox has never existed. Most people in Russia use: Yandex web browser, Opera or Google Chrome. > From this, if we assume Mozilla is doing what it can to protect users (which may or may not be the case), it would be better to comply but Russians get official builds of Firefox than being banned and the Russian government replacing Firefox with their own build. Mozilla loses nothing from not complying but gains reputation and trust of not sharing the bed with Putin.

Sk8Wo 2y ago

ublock origin is blocked in china, in same way. otherwise the whole amo would be blocked. see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30740366 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30740366

anon66669938144 2y ago
that's not even relevant since couldn't you just run adblocking dns script as cronjob with list of ad domains like here? https://raw.githubusercontent.com/StevenBlack/hosts/master/hosts https://raw.githubusercontent.com/StevenBlack/hosts/master/h... how china blocks that? ublock sucks anyway if you're using 127.0.0.1:53 with unbound/dnscrypt or something
- hnarn 2y ago
  ublock blocks html element in a browser, dns blacklists stop resolution. they’re clearly not the same.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

lostmsu 2y ago

Pecunia non olet

cute_boi 2y ago

And you cannot install dev extension in mozilla like chrome without uploading in addons hub. Mozilla is becoming to bad these days.

poisonborz 2y ago
Not true, you can simply use an xpi file, without signature even when a flag is set.
- yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
  https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/add-on-signing-in-firefox#w_what-are-my-options-if-i-want-to-use-an-unsigned-add-on-advanced-users https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/add-on-signing-in-firef... seems to say that the normal release of Firefox can't install unsigned XPIs
  - poisonborz 2y ago
    Sorry, dev and nightly, but that doesnt impact browser experience otherwise. https://wiki.mozilla.org/Add-ons/Extension_Signing#FAQ https://wiki.mozilla.org/Add-ons/Extension_Signing#FAQ
    - yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
      Using pre-release versions absolutely is different
  - RunningDroid 2y ago
    If you modify the AppConstants file (inside omni.ja) you can install unsigned extensions anyway: https://gist.github.com/TheBrokenRail/c43bf0f07f4860adac2631a1bd9e4136 https://gist.github.com/TheBrokenRail/c43bf0f07f4860adac2631...
    - yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
      That link appears to describe a process for patching the Firefox package. That does not strike me as a reasonable solution.

Jiahang 2y ago

uBlock Origin is ban in china

hi-v-rocknroll 2y ago

MAANG and quasi-nonprofit husks of former megacorps aren't your friends. They tend to do the bidding of authoritarian regimes, enable genocides like Myanmar, and disclose metadata facilitating the targeting of civilians.

Employee6645 2y ago

Mozilla does all sorts of problematic things all the time, but none of them have been as ethically terrible as this. I hope this is a temporary misunderstanding.

python273 2y ago

With all the criticism of Mozilla here, it wouldn't be any help to keep these few extensions available, and get the whole website blocked. It's possible to get addons signed and distribute it on other websites. On the other hand, when Apple complies with demands, there's no way to install apps anymore.

SergeAx 2y ago

Is there a way to side-load Mozilla extensions and circumvent their store? We see now that any central-authority store is a net negative for online freedoms and rights.

itvision 2y ago
Firefox will happily install anything signed by Mozilla. You just have to download it somewhere.

smsm42 2y ago

Does Mozilla have any assets or workers located in Russia? If yes, this could be the reason, as the censors won't hesitate to go after them, and the law in Russia is whatever Kremlin says it is. If there aren't then it's just unbelievable cowardice which lacks any explanation.

itvision 2y ago
> Does Mozilla have any assets or workers located in Russia? Nothing.
- xorofevil 2y ago
  You know where all of Mozilla's 1000+ employees are right now? Good for you.
  - itvision 2y ago
    https://discourse.mozilla.org/t/the-censorship-circumvention-extension-has-disappeared-from-the-russian-version-of-mozilla-addons/130914/38 https://discourse.mozilla.org/t/the-censorship-circumvention...
- smsm42 2y ago
  Then I suspect it's just cowardice.

paulcarroty 2y ago

Mozilla: we're all for freedom & users privacy, but Putins regime pays us too much money!