18 ms·

Gorhill pulls uBlock Origin Lite from Firefox store

481 points by croes 2y ago

Andy101 2y ago
[dead]
petabit 2y ago
Apparently, as the article says, the lite version is the recommended one by the author to be used
- ziml77 2y ago
  Recommended for Chrome. I'm not sure why anyone would want this for Firefox.
  - trustno2 2y ago
    It's lighter on resources and requires less permissions (so it's more private). manifest v3 is not as bad idea as some people are saying
- prmoustache 2y ago
  The article is misleading. The lite version is recommended on chrome because very soon the non lite version will stop working. It doesn't apply to firefox.
jqpabc123 2y ago
[flagged]
- VoxPelli 2y ago
  How is that at all relevant here? Google doesn't have this same review process for Chrome?
  - einpoklum 2y ago
    If it does, that only strengthens the point.
- JohnBooty 2y ago
  Generally, yes: follow the money. But that does not mean that random errors can be always attributed to malice or financial interests. You think that's how Mozilla would kiss up to Google? "Hey, we disabled an ad-blocking extension (although not its more popular and powerful big brother) for half a day! And then we put it back up!" If I'm Google, that is not really thrilling me or making an impact. Also, the Google/Mozilla relationship goes both ways. Mozilla is dependent on Google for cash, which I absolutely dislike. However, Google also needs Mozilla as a hedge against antitrust claims. From an antitrust standpoint the ideal situation for Google is that Google continues to fund Mozilla, and Mozilla continues to allow ad-blocking (looks good to regulators) while continuing to have a tiny market share (so that FF's uBlock users don't actually have much of an impact on Google's advertising biz)
  - jqpabc123 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - seba_dos1 2y ago
      > They had no idea that uBlock Lite was the most popular ad blocker for Firefox. Did I miss anything? Unless you really care about resource usage (on mobile, perhaps), there's hardly any reason to use uBlock Origin Lite on Firefox. It exists because of Chrome.
Freak_NL 2y ago
I really hope Raymond Hill won't do the same for uBlock Origin (the manifest v2 version). I'm not too comfortable recommending others to install a self-hosted extension. It's a shame Mozilla and Raymond Hill can't/won't solve this together. I get that the review he got simply should not have happened for an extension like this (see the Github thread¹) and that he is simply done with bothering, but I worry about how that will affect uBlock Origin's long-term stability as a project. The whole situation sounds decidedly unhealthy. 1: https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/issues/197#issuecomment-2377395301 https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/issues/197#issueco...
- free_bip 2y ago
  Latest update from the link you provided: The Mozilla review team acknowledged their error and rectified it. Hopefully that allows it to continue existing.
  - cholantesh 2y ago
    Hill seems intent on self-hosting, so I mean it will exist, but will be a lot harder to discover and as GP mentions, probably harder to convince people to install.
- superkuh 2y ago
  uBlock Origin 1.60 is still held back for review by Mozilla. Despite it being out for about a week 1.59 is the latest available on the Firefox add-on site.
- thoroughburro 2y ago
  > I worry about how that will affect uBlock Origin's long-term stability as a project. I wouldn’t be surprised if UBO has more users across all browsers than Firefox has users at all, and expect it’s at least within an order of magnitude. To imply it’s in any danger at all because a minor platform is recalcitrant is ridiculous.
  - tandr 2y ago
actinium226 2y ago
But... ublock is like the main reason I use FF
- pbronez 2y ago
  You can continue to use Ublock Origin, which uses the v2 manifest. The delisted extension, Ublock Origin lite, is a v3 manifest plugin. Apparently it was created to address chrome blocking the v2 extension, but you can continue to use the v2 extension on Firefox
- anonymous_sorry 2y ago
  ublock origin is still available in the Firefox add-on store. The developer has pulled the 'lite' version, which is developed mainly for Chrome because Google killed some APIs the full version was using.
VoxPelli 2y ago
Because no one ever have taken over and compromised high profile extensions? Chrome battles with it a lot, see eg. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36146278 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36146278 I find Mozilla's process to be quite reassuring, but would be good to have alternative "addon stores" that also have a review process
- sdflhasjd 2y ago
  Mozilla is definitely doing the right thing by reviewing the extensions, but the issue here is that were wrong, they found issues that didn't exist (such as claiming it contained obfuscated code and collected private data). It appears the issues were found using simple heuristics (e.g they detected string pagead2.googlesyndication.com in a comment) and these detections weren't then manually reviewed as claimed, which is wasting everybody's time.
  - protoster 2y ago
    Why does lying about manual review seem so commonplace? For example, during basically any YouTube copyright or moderation controversy, there is always "manual review" of videos that have obviously been caught in automated systems that in case of actual manual review, would be cleared of problems by any reasonable human.
    - nicce 2y ago
      Maybe "manual review" here is that someone "manually" runs the automation tool for that specific entity.
- JohnBooty 2y ago
  Absolutely. But: I don't think anybody is saying that high profile extensions should receive less scrutiny? For high-profile extensions, the impact is higher for both false negatives and false positives. So they should receive more attention. I do not know anything about Mozilla's internal procedures regarding add-on approvals. However, for a high profile extension like uBO/uBO Lite... it should either require multiple reviewers, or maybe just an escalation to a senior reviewer or something. You should never be a single human error away from a high impact mistake. Maybe they do that already, I dunno. But it seems hard for me to believe that multiple people approved uBO Lite's yoinking. Extensions are SUCH a crucial part of FF's appeal. And uBO/uBO is arguably the most important of them all.
poincaredisk 2y ago
>The last message from the developer in a now-closed GitHub issue shows an email from Mozilla admitting its fault and apologizing for the mistake. However, Raymond still pulled the extension from the Mozilla Add-ons Store, which means you can no longer find it on addons.mozilla.org. This seems pretty harsh. Mozilla made a mistake, Mozilla apologized, Mozilla fixed the mistake (maybe even improved their processes), and the author still pulls their choose and criticizes Mozilla. On my opinion either author took this a bit up personally, or cares about improving the review process and wants to make a strong point (with some hurt done for their project visibility).
- VoxPelli 2y ago
  Feels like they were just waiting for a reason to pull out – likely feels its a hassle to upload and have it review and just want everyone to trust them and keep it simple And I guess some people would claim that since its an open source addon no one can feel entitled to anything else
- prmoustache 2y ago
  [flagged]
- latexr 2y ago
  Remember why uBlock Origin exists in the first place: Raymond Hill was fed up with the chore of all the administrative crap around uBlock¹. They wanted it to be a hobby and it started feeling like a job. https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/issues/38#issuecomment-91871802 https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/issues/38#issuecomment-918... So it’s predictable they’d get fed up with that Mozilla review process and call it quits too. ¹ Which led them to hand the project to an unscrupulous rando that immediately tried to monetise it, leading Raymond to hate the outcome and having to decry his own previous project and ending up essentially where it all started but with a bunch of extra work in the middle.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- 2y ago
latexr 2y ago
For anyone confused by the real title: > uBlock Origin Lite maker ends Firefox store support, slams Mozilla for hostile reviews “Review” here means the Mozilla review to allow the extension in the store, not user reviews of the extension.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
einpoklum 2y ago
Mozilla decided at some point to kill extensions - whether following Google Chrome or of its own volition. It took an axe to its ecosystem by disablign the loading of anything external other than WebExtensions - and note that it's just an artificial disabling, as internally, Firefox is still basically some bundled "extensions" over a C++ core. And now there's the "manifest v3" change, and making people jump through hoops to be on AMO. This is very sad, almost as much as the internal governance over there.
kristjank 2y ago
Another Mozilla classic...
- timeon 2y ago
  From the article: > uBlock Origin Lite is a Manifest V3-compatible version of the content blocker. It is less powerful, but since Google is disabling Manifest V2 support in Chrome, it is what will remain from uBlock Origin for Chromium-based browsers. > Does it affect uBlock Origin? The core extension remains available for Firefox. Unlike Google Chrome, Firefox will continue to support Manifest V2 extensions. Mozilla has not flagged this extensions or disabled it But somehow it is Mozilla who is the bad guy not Chromium-based browsers.
  - yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
    > But somehow it is Mozilla who is the bad guy Sounds like it, yeah. > not Chromium-based browsers. Nobody said that.
  - seszett 2y ago
    This story is about Mozilla removing the Lite/Manifest v3 version from Firefox's extensions, this has nothing to with Chromium. Now why does such a version even exist when the "normal" uBlock Origin is available on Firefox, I don't know. But there's no question it was a mistake by Mozilla. Mistakes do happen, I'm just explaining why it's only related to Mozilla's actions here.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - JadeNB 2y ago
    To be clear, the complaint is not about Manifest V2 vs. Manifest V3 (which is of course its own can of nonsense), but about Mozilla's review: > Mozilla says that it has reviewed the extension and found violations. The following claims were made: > The extension is not asking for consent for data collecting. > The extension contains "minified, concatenated or otherwise machine-generated code". > There is no privacy policy. The article points out that all three points are false, and this, or—I'll go ahead and trust the author of an extension I rely on heavily—what the author says: > In a follow-up, Hill criticized the "nonsensical and hostile review process" that put added burden on developers. Mozilla disabled all versions of the extension except for the very first one. It still flagged the extension for the very same reasons, but nevertheless decided to keep the outdated version up. is what makes Mozilla the bad guy here. (It also says Mozilla restored the extension a few days later, which is better than doubling down but, of course, worse than not making the ridiculous error in the first place.)
1GZ0 2y ago
Mozilla just can't help themselves, can they? Seriously, once Google is broken up and their donations to Mozilla stop, I won't be sad when Mozilla is forced to shut down.
- jordanb 2y ago
  These "lapses in judgement" are driven by Mozilla's brass representing the desires of their real masters. A post-Google Mozilla may be smaller, but I bet Firefox would be better and more popular.
  - 1GZ0 2y ago
    I hope so, but I wouldn't count on it.
  - noworriesnate 2y ago
    I wish they'd get smaller first, build up a fund so they could literally just invest in the stock market and run indefinitely off the returns, and only then go Google-free. That would be a more permanent solution.
    - yencabulator 2y ago
      That sounds like it'd make less money for the CEO, why would they be interested in that? Mozilla no longer does what is good for Firefox.
      - okanat 2y ago
        Yeah, I think getting sold to a company like Proton AG would be the better outcome for Firefox.
seba_dos1 2y ago
It's a blog post about something that happened a month ago and boils down to "some (obvious) mistake happened during review". Not much to see here.
- bluGill 2y ago
  That obvious mistakes can happen is itself a problem.
  - flyingpenguin 2y ago
    Have you never been at work being forced to do something because you need money but you just are not feeling it that day? Obvious mistakes will ALWAYS happen, regardless of rules, regulations, human involvement, process, etc. It's thoughts like this "How can we make sure this doesn't happen again" "Its unacceptable than an obvious mistake happened" that make corporations so full of random rules, because they think it's possible to prevent things like this. What matters is the frequency with which they happen, and how gracefully you handle yourself after it happened.
    - hermannj314 2y ago
      "But the bias-variance tradeoff doesn't really apply to us" - every bureaucracy ever.
    - somerandom2407 2y ago
      And problems like this could still have been avoided if their system required review by a second party before blocking an addon by a developer of good standing who has addons with a huge number of users. Sure, the individual doing the check might be incompetent, but that doesn't mean that Raymond needed to be bothered by Mozilla about it - they could have handled it internally instead.
  - talldayo 2y ago
    Obvious mistakes are an issue with most software stores. Less a matter of attention being paid, and more a consequence of scale: https://www.pcmag.com/news/beware-theres-a-fake-lastpass-app-on-apples-app-store https://www.pcmag.com/news/beware-theres-a-fake-lastpass-app...
InsomniacL 2y ago
> The organization issued an apology for the "mistake" and recommended to Hill to reach out whenever he has questions or concerns about a review. Before taking drastic action like pulling addons from the store, Mozilla should reach out if they have questions or concerns about a review.
- elAhmo 2y ago
  It appears all of the companies that are gatekeepers to apps, extensions and similar user-generated stuff are really quick to overreact and unless you are a high-profile person, have a lot of followers or a really popular app or an extension, good luck resolving it in a timely manner.
  - suprjami 2y ago
    This is literally the most high profile person Mozilla has. He's carrying the entire browser.
  - CaptainFever 2y ago
    On first glance, it really does seem to be the case, regardless if one is "big tech" (e.g. Apple) or a non-profit organization (e.g. Mozilla).
  - nar001 2y ago
    Gorhill is a pretty high profile person considering uBlock Origin and yet still got it taken down and overreacted though. So the issues seem to run deeper than that.
AdmiralAsshat 2y ago
Oof. I get gorhill is pissed about the whole thing, but, this feels like cutting off your nose to spite your face. It's going to be much trickier for people to get uBO Lite onto their Firefox for Android installations now, or even if they can, they might just not bother. And, while I suppose gorhill could make the case that he's protesting this egregious process on behalf of the little guy, the fact is, he's not the little guy as far as Firefox add-ons go. uBO was one of the first (if not the first) 3rd-party addon to be offered as part of Firefox for Android after Mozilla's reorg started rolling out. He clearly has Mozilla's attention. I'm not sure what he gains from continued intransigence offers after Mozilla admits their mistake and apologizes.
- Timshel 2y ago
  He gains by not having to interact with them for UBOL. When you waste people's time sometimes an apology is not enough for them to want to continue to work with you ...
  - 51Cards 2y ago
    An outlook like that will really limit who you work with in the future. I don't know anyone, corp or otherwise, that doesn't mess up from time to time. What matters is the acknowledgement of the mistake and taking steps to rectify it. IMO, as much as I highly respect his products, the dev pulled a hissy fit over a mistake.
    - yencabulator 2y ago
      So, half of what you say matters seems to be missing.
      - ForHackernews 2y ago
        They restored his extension (until he removed it again), what more do the Mozilla-haters want?
        2y ago
wolpoli 2y ago
> The organization issued an apology for the "mistake" and recommended to Hill to reach out whenever he has questions or concerns about a review. It's unclear why the author of the article decided that the word 'mistake' deserved the scary quote treatment.
- greentxt 2y ago
  Because there was a privacy policy it's hard to understand how that could be a mistake. The insinuation is the reviewer was not acting in hood faith.
  - pdpi 2y ago
    Which brings us to: It's unclear why the author of the article decided that the reviewer was not acting in good faith.
    - jeroenhd 2y ago
      The reviewer asserts that the addon transmits data. It does not. That may not be malice, of course. It could just be incompetence (someone running an automated scanner and not verifying that the results are correct), someone trusted with a job they're not capable of doing, or maybe it's just Mozilla pretending someone reviewed the addon while using shitty AI like ChatGPT to do all the work. The email even directly links to resources that are supposedly "minified, concatenated or otherwise machine-generated". That's simply not true.
    - busterarm 2y ago
      Maybe it's the fact that 80+% of Mozilla's revenue comes directly from payment by Google who are extremely hostile to ad blockers (and UBO in particular) at the moment. That should be obvious, honestly. The extension is a threat to the reviewer's paycheck...
      - cholantesh 2y ago
        UBO isn't even the extension that was scrutinized, and besides how do you even know that the reviewer (if they are a human which seems open to question) is a Mozilla employee rather than a volunteer, and that they were not acting out of sheer incompetence?
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
SuperNinKenDo 2y ago
Fair play. uBO is THE killer extension, and apparently it never occured to Mozilla that if they were going to insist on using some hideous, Google style, machine led review process for extensions, perhaps they should at least make a carve out for one of the single most important extensions that exists. I can totally understand gorhill becoming completely insensed by the whole thing and refusing to play ball when Mozilla "realises their mistake". Their mistake was assuming he would simply put up with being subjected to the drudgery that so many extension and open-source developers allow themselves to be subjected to in return for little thanks and ever increasing demands. The outcome is far from ideal, but the fault, sadly, lies squarely with Mozilla. Real shame.
- abhinavk 2y ago
  This is about uBOL. I haven't seen much delays for the main extension. It is always more up to date on Firefox compared to Chrome/Edge.
  - SuperNinKenDo 2y ago
    OK? So you support Mozilla's actions or something? What is the purpose of your comment?
    - jorams 2y ago
      The purpose of their comment is to correct your statement that: > perhaps they should at least make a carve out for one of the single most important extensions that exists. uBOL is not an important extension on Firefox.
      - witrak 2y ago
        >uBOL is not an important extension on Firefox. Perhaps you should read some earlier comments then you wouldn't say such things? Hints: Firefox mobile; range of privileges required.
        2y ago
ForHackernews 2y ago
So Mozilla goofed, apologised of their own accord and corrected the mistake? And in response this dev is throwing his toys out of the pram? Do I read this right?
- jampekka 2y ago
  I can see how having to jump pointless bureaucratic hoops in a volunteer project can cause throwing out toys.
  - ForHackernews 2y ago
    What pointless hoops? The extension was restored.
    - jampekka 2y ago
      After pointless hoops. And the process seems to involve pointless hoops even when the review is not rejected. https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/issues/197 https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/issues/197
      - ForHackernews 2y ago
        Again, what pointless hoops? > After re-reviewing your extension, we have determined that the previous decision was incorrect and based on that determination, we have restored your add-on.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
  - catapart 2y ago
    Yeah, it's kind of wild to see the general reaction to this being "the developer is being unreasonable". It's like... I, too, find it burdensome for a review that claims to be "manual" to suddenly flag a file my code has been utilizing for years, and puts the onus on me to refute it's findings. Not only is it trying to prove a negative, it's ridiculous that an unchanged file needs re-review for things like "is it minified?". As far as I can see, there are errors here and they are ALL on Mozilla's side. Better training, maybe, but probably just stop lying that a manual review has happened when it hasn't. And then, when you have whatever semi-automated review is being done flag a thing, then actually have a human review it. And, since that would be a firehose, implement simple standards to filter out spam and publish those standards - and what effect each infraction will have on the review process, including steps for remedy. Make them able to be completed as automatically as possible for the developers, so that you don't have to manually review, again. If it's a minification issue, require the devs to re-upload non-minified versions, check it automatically, and then allow the publish. I'm being simplistic and flip, but a reasonable generalization is just that bureaucracy should be imposed on the implementers of the bureaucracy, not the people who are trying to engage with it.
lol768 2y ago
Why does this extension even exist on AMO? The article says it's the "Lite/Manifest v3 version" - why would you ever install the inferior edition meant for legacy browsers, instead of the one that blocks ads properly that's meant for Firefox?
- SSLy 2y ago
  Because it's lighter on power usage, and that matters for firefox on android.
  - panarky 2y ago
    And because it can block ads without infinite permission to read and change every site you visit.
  - mmwelt 2y ago
    But now it's not even possible to use the add-on in Firefox for Android, as only add-ons from AMO can be installed.
    - mdaniel 2y ago
      I was curious if trying to load it via file:///storage/emulated/0/Download/... would work (as my recollection is that .xpi installation is content-type: sensitive) but insult-to-injury is that FF Nightly for Android searches for the string "file:///storage...", so they seemingly have nuked even the file: protocol handler for Android. Good times over there at Mozilla
      - Elfener 2y ago
        Pretty sure file:// is very broken in different ways on every android browser. For example, on kiwi browser typing in a file URL causes it to be searched, but using the "go to URL in clipboard" button (with the file url in your clipboard) works. Except when you randomly run into some weird android file permission issue and the browser just can't see certain files...
      - 2y ago
4bpp 2y ago
If I understand the timeline correctly here, it seems that gorhill overreacted, and I say that as someone who is usually harshly critical of everything Mozilla has done in the past 5+ years. It's hardly practical for Mozilla to manually review every add-on revision for safety in a timely manner, so they had the choice between automation and delays that would make add-on development a slog; automation though inevitably will cause false positives. What's the alternative? No pre-release review at all? As a user I would hope that this will not be the case, especially now that we have confirmation that flashy supply chain attacks are being executed in the wild. In fact the review policy protects gorhill himself too, since it makes him a bit less attractive as a target for a rubberhose attack (no point in blackmailing him to put in spyware if the spyware would be caught before release).
- account42 2y ago
  So? Mozilla inserted themselves as middlemen into addon delivery. Even for the so-called selfhosted addons. They can just not do that if doing it properly and without undue delays means more work than they can handle.
- SSLy 2y ago
  > No pre-release review at all? certainly not leaving only the oldest version of the extension up.
- jeroenhd 2y ago
  I'm not even surprised the addon got flagged. The linked files in the Github issue all had file names insinuating a direct connection to known trackers (which, of course, uBOL is blocking). Whatever automated scanning tool Mozilla uses probably latched on to "oh this is Google Tag Manager" and issued the warning that is normally handed out to addons that do include sketchy scripts like these. HOWEVER: the email clearly states: > Your Extension uBlock Origin Lite was manually reviewed by the Mozilla Add-ons team in an assessment performed on our own initiative of content that was submitted to Mozilla Add-ons Either that is a lie, or the manual reviewer that did the "review" doesn't understand that the automated tool they ran is capable of false positives. Nothing wrong with automated abuse assessments on a platform like Mozilla's, but don't lie in your communications about it (or hire people who know what they're doing when it comes to blocking addons).
seneca 2y ago
Mozilla is an absolute joke of an organization, and it's tragic that they are still the primary alternative to Google having a total monopoly on browsers. I suppose you shouldn't expect much from a company that is just there to maintain a facade to fend off regulators.
- busterarm 2y ago
  We're at a really dangerous point with browsers at the moment where there's really no consumer-friendly option available. I'm scared to say that Safari comes closest but you're just in Apple's walled garden then instead of someone elses'. Our only hope seems to lie with Ladybird, if that even ends up being good and it seems extensions aren't on the agenda at least for a while.
  - slig 2y ago
    I'd say we're past that point. Less than 5% of global users (and going down) and NO mobile presence at all. The newer generation of devs and power users won't even care.
    - busterarm 2y ago
      You're absolutely right, but I'm trying to retain a shred of optimism, especially with a high amount of focus and interest on this area lately with projects like Ladybird and even new Gopher and Gemini clients. If the vast majority of endusers want to live in the moat, I can't stop them, but at least I'd like an alternative to explore interesting content even if my bank, etc will never support it. At least banks are regulated enough that I don't expect their websites to be running full-page video ads anytime soon.
      - x0x0 2y ago
        It's past time to give up on Mozilla. I told our dev teams to not even bother testing because, on our b2b site, Firefox usage was under 0.01%. That is not a typo. I can't spend dev time on that. They're doing the same, and now playing VC, an industry at which they have no apparent expertise.
sunaookami 2y ago
It's very annoying you have to submit your extension to gatekeepers to even distribute them to normal users. As gorhill said on GitHub it took days for a self-hosted version to be approved - that's unacceptable. Imagine you would need approval from Microsoft to distribute software. Not even Android is this closed. Enforcing signatures and removing XUL were the worst things Mozilla has ever done. And yes, Google does the same and it's even worse there but this it to be expected from them, but not from Mozilla.
- Zak 2y ago
  On desktop Firefox, you can download an extension from anywhere and install it. All they're gatekeeping is their own repository, which I think most of us would like them to do. I think mobile requires using a nightly build to install extensions from outside Mozilla's repository, and that suggests their thinking is becoming contaminated by the rest of the mobile ecosystem.
  - Semaphor 2y ago
    No, the normal version blocks (at least permanent) installs. You need the developer version to install unsigned extensions.
    - Zak 2y ago
      I see. The extension I installed to test that actually is signed, though it's not in AMO. I don't like this. I know there have been issues with malicious extensions, so it makes sense to me that installing unsigned extensions is turned off by default, but requiring developer builds is a step too far.
    - pxc 2y ago
      What release made this change effective?
      - Semaphor 2y ago
        That was many years ago, there was a bit of a public complaint.
solarkraft 2y ago
It‘s not only that, Firefox also forces you to use the Developer edition (which updates about daily, FORCING you to restart it) if you want to install extensions that aren’t signed by Mozilla (e.g. your own). This behavior reminds of Apple. They say it‘s for security (where have I heard that before), yet Chrome doesn’t seem to need such a restriction. To me it seems like another step in many of Mozilla‘s enshittification.
- rgreekguy 2y ago
  I am pretty sure Chrome has also added the forced restart for a bit now. It might not show up right after the update, but it doesn't take long. I don't remember if it was straighforward, or just crashed new tabs.
- aaronmdjones 2y ago
  You don't have to use the developer edition to run unsigned addons; you can use the ESR version or nightly as well.
Dkuku 2y ago
This again shows the problem of automatic reviews. There should be a person name in every review that was responsible for it, currently it's blamed on our automated system. If the law would require someones name on it then I'm pretty sure the review process would be much better and the explanation would include more than an apology.
system7rocks 2y ago
Curious why Firefox doesn’t just start incorporating uBlock into the browser? Make it a standard feature that comes pre-installed… but maybe not automatically enabled? Thoughts?
- bogwog 2y ago
  Mozilla has been trying to become an ad company for a while now. A built-in ad blocker would mess that up for them.
  - jjice 2y ago
    Have they? I haven't seen this. They have a lot of tracking protection built in, but no ad blocker. I'm not doubting you, I just haven't seen any action or posts on their part about this.
    - BenjiWiebe 2y ago
      You get sponsored content in the new tab page by default.
    - mossTechnician 2y ago
      They developed Privacy Preserving Attribution with Facebook to collect data from browsers. It's enabled by default in fresh Firefox installs. They also acquired an advertisement subsidiary, Anonym, earlier this year. So when Mozilla makes a statement about advertisements, it's worth a little extra scrutiny.
- joemi 2y ago
  So many people in this comment thread commenting stuff like this, that it should be included, it's the only reason to use Firefox, etc. Meanwhile I use Firefox every day at work without uBlock Origin or any other ad blockers, and it's perfectly fine. Why do you think they should it?
open-paren 2y ago
I manage a medium-sized browser extension at work. We also offer(ed) it on Firefox. But I have spent the past year struggling to get back into Mozilla store after a manual review. As far as I can tell, there are maybe two reviewers that are based in Europe (Romania?). The turn around time is long when I am in the US, and it has been rife with this same kind of "simple mistake" that takes 2 weeks to resolve. "You need a privacy policy"–we already have one. "You are using machine generated and minified code"–no you are looking at the built code, not the included source. "We cannot reproduce your source"-that's because you didn't follow instructions and are in the wrong directory. Very frustrating.
- sureIy 2y ago
  I had these issues too a few years ago. Now the review time is shorter than Chrome’s and hasn’t been flagged in a few years. However my extension has about 10k users, if that makes any difference.
- jjice 2y ago
  Also had these issues when working on my previous job's extension. The Firefox review process was a real nightmare to work with. Same heavy delays and misunderstandings your mentioned. Eventually the company just stopped updating the Firefox extension as often since usage was low and the review process was such a pain. Unfortunate for me, as the only engineer (maybe employee) at that company that used Firefox.
  - whstl 2y ago
    Same here. We even had a special "mini" Firefox version that didn't require any additional Javascript build step, to make the review easy. But there were so many issues with the review and so few users that we just decided to give up.
  - rightbyte 2y ago
    The whole extension change Mozilla forced on Firefox seems like some sort of sabotage. Mozilla sneaking in more and more spyware and ad friendly functionality seems in line with the same conspirators. And given how high profile all these changes are, it runs to the top of the company.
amiga386 2y ago
There's nothing more frustrating than being gatekept by incompetent, lying idiots. Sad day for users but the right choice by Hill. Mozilla wanted in on the $CURRENT_THING of being a "platform" where devs bow and scrape and they claim to be the great custodian of stuff, protector of users. Don't do this if you can't be competent at it. Devs _can_ leave, and they will if you fuck up often enough.
internet2000 2y ago
The sooner people realize Mozilla is not your friend, the better. They’ve been compromised by the Google money. Want an alternative to Chromium? Go support Servo or Ladybird, Firefox can’t be saved.
- TZubiri 2y ago
  Seems a bit extremist. I get being mad at microsoft for trying to charge for their software (gasp). I also get being mad at Chrome for trying to monetize their software (gasp) with ads. But now if you somehow get upset at Mozilla, it's more likely that you are the problem.
  - lez 2y ago
    According to your argument, if Gorhill gets upset at Mozilla, then Gorhill is the problem? Who is the extremist here?
    - TZubiri 2y ago
      That's obtuse, I'm talking about users.
- nosioptar 2y ago
  Neither of those work with ublock. I'd sooner disconnect from the net than not use ublock. (Same reason i don't use qutebrowser.) I like SeaMonkey, it works with a legacy version of ublock. It's like using firefox back when it didnt suck.
- conor- 2y ago
  Blink is to Servo what Chromium is to Firefox. Supporting Servo on its own doesn't really move the needle a whole lot if it's missing all of the rest of the bits that make a comprehensive browser. Firefox is already using Servo (at least in the form of Quantum) under the hood and is still the best option available to prevent more of a complete Blink monoculture than already exists with every other major browser being Blink-based or some reskin/fork of Chromium
jkmegtu 2y ago
[flagged]
- orthecreedence 2y ago
  True, I never thought about it that way.
- EasyMark 2y ago
  /thread
nix0n 2y ago
If Raymond Hill endorsed a Firefox fork, I would switch to it immediately.
- pessimizer 2y ago
  Yes, uBlock should incorporate Firefox, rather than Firefox incorporating adblocking.
g-b-r 2y ago
A first effect of Mozilla's new "focus on AI"...
TZubiri 2y ago
First came NetScape and all was good. Then came Internet Explorer, but apparently bundling a web browser with an operating system was bad, ok. Then came Google's Chrome trying to profit from a web browser with ads, and that was deemed 'bad' again. Then it was not sufficient for the browser manufacturers to push no ads, but the consumer demands that the browser block ads from websites. Now the browser developer and the third party ad blocker have some fight over who gets to serve clients that not only don't pay, but don't want advertisers to foot the bill either. I have no sympathy for users that don't want to pay for software, or for developers that cater to that demographic. Enjoy fighting for crumbs. Sent from Microsoft Edge.
- pessimizer 2y ago
  Nobody is forcing you to put your website on the open internet, you're doing it because you're making a value judgement about how much money you can make by not closing or paywalling your system. Nobody cares what your business model is (that's your business and your decision barring illegality), and if it's not working for you, you should change it or shut down. Why should anyone have any sympathy for you?
totetsu 2y ago
Tangentially has anyone else noticed chrome extensions management page now saying unlock origin will soon be disables and to please find a replacement?
- grahamj 2y ago
  Yep. Fuck Google, I won’t use a desktop browser without it.
  - silverliver 2y ago
    I wouldn't use a mobile browser without it either.
    - grahamj 2y ago
      Wish I could say the same but that would require using an OS by Google... we can't win :P Luckily there are other good options on the iOS front but I wish uBO was one of them.
- eYrKEC2 2y ago
  The replacement is Brave browser https://brave.com/ https://brave.com/. Skip the crypto. Enjoy the integrated ad blocking.
yapyap 2y ago
honestly we arent missing much by a manifest v3 ublock origin lite extension going away on firefox because firefox is still compatible with v2 so realistically we wouldnt have any use for it. nevertheless it still is a sucky situation
Havoc 2y ago
Those don’t seem like unreasonable asks on Moz side
Sephr 2y ago
Doesn't this behavior from Mozilla staff indicate that using Firefox extensions at all is a security issue? This shows that the reviewers may not be competent enough to catch actual malware uploaded to their add-ons site.
- Aachen 2y ago
  Yes. I never took the review process seriously, I assumed people could publish pretty much whatever. Today I learned it's meant to be tight as well as that you can't run your own code anymore; that it needs to go through review or you get to reinstall every time you start your browser. I've held out for a long time with Mozilla, trusting they thought it's a useful thing to do when they partner with Facebook to make privacy preserving adtech. This is a big ask of me though. I don't use it myself but I'm constantly running into limitations on Android and, at work, iOS because you can't simply do what you want on the devices without all sorts of hoops and fearmongering surrounding having actual access to your own device—the stuff I use my phone for simply doesn't run without root and one can't even make a full system backup without. It's not your device. Learning this about Firefox makes me feel it's not my browser...
vednig 2y ago
Automated process have so far managed to destroy the experience of the world wide web as a whole for developers and users both. And AI based tools seem like gas to this fire. Seems very soon web will die out of it's quality and only bots will remain.
NelsonMinar 2y ago
I'd hoped Google sabotaging uBlock Origin would be an opportunity for Mozilla to pick up some new users for Firefox. Lol.
neilv 2y ago
Gorhill's full uBlock Origin might be the only remaining selling point for Firefox. With the outrageous sum of money that the Mozilla top executive was recently taking for themself, they could've instead staffed an entire team of first-rate people, with the sole mission of doing whatever Mr. Gorhill needed.
- move-on-by 2y ago
  They are too busy working for the advertising companies Mr. Gorhill is blocking. Most recently adding ‘privacy preserving attribution’ - a feature that no user has asked for.
  - paulryanrogers 2y ago
    People don't want 3P cookies tracking them around the web. They also don't want to pay to visit sites. Mozilla is trying to provide a middle path, I salute the effort.
    - ectospheno 2y ago
      I pay to visit many sites on the internet. Netflix, Hulu, Disney, Max, Twitch, etc. They provide value for my money. I don’t pay for news. Intelligent employees of news organizations would learn from that but no… Instead we get advertising apologists trying to gaslight me into thinking tracking is ok.
      - tremon 2y ago
        > Intelligent employees of news organizations would learn from that but no They did learn from it, that's why many "news" sites are now content-free entertainment, and why intelligent non-employees of news organizations complain that they're not providing news.
    - thoroughburro 2y ago
      Is everyone who claims the Internet cannot work without advertising only 20 years old? Why try to gaslight so many people who remember the Internet without advertising just fine. It was just a few decades ago!
qwertox 2y ago
I wish we could add PPAs to browsers just like we can in Debian/Ubuntu. Maybe the EU should look into this, and also allow the users to "weaken" their security in order to continue using Manifest Version 2.
Log_out_ 2y ago
If you would group those woes, by type of addon, i guess there is "irrelevant " and "a world of pain for those threatening google add revenues " .. the hand that feeds.
Lerc 2y ago
It seems to me that any platform with a review gateway should treat failing a review erroneously as a critical failure. In fact it does literally constitute denial-of-service. When a failure like this occurs, it needs more than an apology, it should have an incident report to show that the failure was understood and steps were taken to prevent future failures.
- tatersolid 2y ago
  From a security standpoint the opposite is true: false negatives are to be avoided at all costs, even when that posture increases false positives. There’s always a trade-off.
  - eviks 2y ago
    Or there isn't and such level of competence just increases the chances of both types of negatives: there is no good reason to think that people who can't see the obvious in cases like this one will catch hidden vulnerabilities
andrewmcwatters 2y ago
We need an industry movement of just saying no to app stores.
throwaway984393 2y ago
This is why app stores / extension stores are simply an antipattern. The intent is to make usability easier, but it's actually useful functionality. Get rid of the app and extension stores and let users just install software they find on the internet. Safe and secure software is found on websites dedicated to reviewing them, like the Freshmeat of old, Tucows, etc.
AndrewKemendo 2y ago
Is it even possible to connect to the public Internet in a way that isn’t completely compromised by a corporation or state? TOR is busted at this point DNS have been MITMed Almost all hosts are under the control of a few players who are compelled by their respective states for ubiquitous and server monitoring Any advertised IP has to have tons of routing info and local pointers so local hosting is just as risky if not more What are the remaining options for a free (as in speech) internet?
- lez 2y ago
  Nostr.
  - AndrewKemendo 2y ago
    Thanks I’ve heard of this but hadn’t looked too hard
  - squarefoot 2y ago
    Technically intriguing, but the people involved don't inspire the slightest trust. https://archive.ph/TLwch https://archive.ph/TLwch ( https://www.businessinsider.com/jack-dorsey-fiatjaf-nostr-donation-2024-6 https://www.businessinsider.com/jack-dorsey-fiatjaf-nostr-do... )
ab_testing 2y ago
I think this is bad for the general population. Chrome is already planning to disable uBlock origin and many folks I know were ready to move browsers to Firefox to keep uBlock functionality. Now if uBlock is removed from Firefox extension store as well, there is no clear path to execute it from Github on managed machines. Sure if you are a developer and have admin rights, you can get it to work on Firefox, but a lot of people don't.
- btown 2y ago
  Per the article, uBlock Origin is still in the Firefox store at https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/ublock-origin/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/ublock-origin... ; it's the lighter MV3-based uBlock Origin Lite that was removed. So the general population can continue to use the full Origin. And because the original non-lite uBlock Origin supports much more complicated rulesets, it should be effective even without code updates... but it still is concerning that the same Mozilla errors that caused Origin Lite to be flagged might extend to time-sensitive updates to the original Origin as well.
dowakin 2y ago
Without Gorhill's uBlock Origin, the internet would be a really awful place. Thank you, Raymond!
thway15269037 2y ago
[flagged]
paul7986 2y ago
One of Firefox's value is uBlock origin for it's users yet not for Mozilla's money train Google and others. With uBlock, pop up blocker extensions and Mac Minis connected to my TVs (wireless mouse as remote) I have totally ad free Internet experience; every site there is & from my couch or in my rooms.
sfink 2y ago
That sucks. I work for Mozilla, but nowhere near Addons so I don't know what pressures they're under or whatever. But if I ran the zoo... this is gorhill we're talking about. We ought to just make him an add-on reviewer with full rights, and tell him it's ok if the only add-ons he reviews are his own. We do not need to vet either his competence or trustworthiness; we have vastly more historical data backing him up than on any contractor or employee. He's not a one-off either. We aren't nearly as volunteer-oriented as we used to be, sadly. But we still get many and major contributions from volunteers, and at least in my team (SpiderMonkey) there's no wall between external and paid contributors. (Except for the company-wide offsites, grr...) I don't see any reason why gorhill couldn't be made a full member of the review team, not that I'd expect him to be up for it right now given what's happened. That makes more sense to me than giving him a special pass that we could potentially give out to other people or organizations. He is a major contributor to Firefox's capability and success already, let him contribute reviews that are already a thing and provide value. (Again, only self-reviews would be just fine with me.) Now I need to figure out who to pester on Slack.
- EasyMark 2y ago
  I suspect he will simmer down a bit (I do not at all blame him for what he did, it has to be frustrating to dedicate thousands of hours into something just to have some clueless person pull it). I think it will be back inside of a week, it’s important and can save battery over regular ublock origin on Firefox.
  - account42 2y ago
    > can save battery over regular ublock origin Comparing battery usage for tools with wildly different capabilites does not make sense.
  - thoroughburro 2y ago
    > it’s important and can save battery over regular ublock origin on Firefox That sounds like a reason for Mozilla to simmer down and compromise, not gorhill.
Timber-6539 2y ago
I fully agree with Gorhill's decision to pull the addon. Any downgrade of user experience on Firefox is solely due to their addons review team. Maybe if more developers refuse to put up with such bullshit in the name of gatekeeping the extensions store, browser vendors will start acting properly.
glub103011 2y ago
[dead]
superkuh 2y ago
uBlock Origin 1.60 for desktop (not lite) has also been stuck in Mozilla review for a week now. On the firefox add-on site it is still 1.59 which doesn't really work for common things like youtube.
EasyMark 2y ago
I'm glad he put it back up, I for one use it knowing that it's saving me battery on my phone and it works quite well.
adam-p 2y ago
If you want another example of difficulty with the AMO review process: https://github.com/adam-p/markdown-here/issues/21 https://github.com/adam-p/markdown-here/issues/21 And that's just one of the examples; another resulted in me having to add a preprocessor that removes code at build-time, which was annoying. I like Firefox, but it wasn't always easy to justify the effort.
CatWChainsaw 2y ago
It seems like customer service/PR/UX has really taken a nosedive since the start of COVID or maybe 2022. The pendulum seems to be swinging from "the customer is always right" to "give me your money, shut the fuck up, and go away until I want your money again." Gorhill threw in the towel on uBOL after dealing with repeated bullshit from Mozilla, from the sounds of it. Multiple reviews, multiple people not understanding what the most famous FF extension in the world does, multiple appeals. Personally, in just the past month, USPS has dropped active email conversations twice; a vendor I use often at work has disabled important web pages and there's utter silence from their support email; Verizon is deprecating their messaging app in a month and I learned this through reddit; and my bank returned a canned response to an issue I raised two months ago. I remember a comment on this site from several months ago from someone who worked in customer service who shared a list of things that deprioritize you in a company's eyes, but it sounded like if you express the least bit of frustration at a bad experience, it goes on your permanent record. Companies, however, are allowed to shaft you however they please.
aprilnya 2y ago
FWIW, I've seen Firefox being unreasonable to other extensions as well — OldTwitter has been gone for a while and BlueBlocker has been trying to push an update to change the domain from Twitter to X for a while with no success...

481 points by croes 2y ago

Andy101 2y ago

[dead]

petabit 2y ago

Apparently, as the article says, the lite version is the recommended one by the author to be used

ziml77 2y ago
Recommended for Chrome. I'm not sure why anyone would want this for Firefox.
- trustno2 2y ago
  It's lighter on resources and requires less permissions (so it's more private). manifest v3 is not as bad idea as some people are saying
prmoustache 2y ago
The article is misleading. The lite version is recommended on chrome because very soon the non lite version will stop working. It doesn't apply to firefox.

jqpabc123 2y ago

[flagged]

VoxPelli 2y ago
How is that at all relevant here? Google doesn't have this same review process for Chrome?
- einpoklum 2y ago
  If it does, that only strengthens the point.
JohnBooty 2y ago
Generally, yes: follow the money. But that does not mean that random errors can be always attributed to malice or financial interests. You think that's how Mozilla would kiss up to Google? "Hey, we disabled an ad-blocking extension (although not its more popular and powerful big brother) for half a day! And then we put it back up!" If I'm Google, that is not really thrilling me or making an impact. Also, the Google/Mozilla relationship goes both ways. Mozilla is dependent on Google for cash, which I absolutely dislike. However, Google also needs Mozilla as a hedge against antitrust claims. From an antitrust standpoint the ideal situation for Google is that Google continues to fund Mozilla, and Mozilla continues to allow ad-blocking (looks good to regulators) while continuing to have a tiny market share (so that FF's uBlock users don't actually have much of an impact on Google's advertising biz)
- jqpabc123 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - seba_dos1 2y ago
    > They had no idea that uBlock Lite was the most popular ad blocker for Firefox. Did I miss anything? Unless you really care about resource usage (on mobile, perhaps), there's hardly any reason to use uBlock Origin Lite on Firefox. It exists because of Chrome.

Freak_NL 2y ago

I really hope Raymond Hill won't do the same for uBlock Origin (the manifest v2 version). I'm not too comfortable recommending others to install a self-hosted extension. It's a shame Mozilla and Raymond Hill can't/won't solve this together. I get that the review he got simply should not have happened for an extension like this (see the Github thread¹) and that he is simply done with bothering, but I worry about how that will affect uBlock Origin's long-term stability as a project. The whole situation sounds decidedly unhealthy. 1: https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/issues/197#issuecomment-2377395301 https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/issues/197#issueco...

free_bip 2y ago
Latest update from the link you provided: The Mozilla review team acknowledged their error and rectified it. Hopefully that allows it to continue existing.
- cholantesh 2y ago
  Hill seems intent on self-hosting, so I mean it will exist, but will be a lot harder to discover and as GP mentions, probably harder to convince people to install.
superkuh 2y ago
uBlock Origin 1.60 is still held back for review by Mozilla. Despite it being out for about a week 1.59 is the latest available on the Firefox add-on site.
thoroughburro 2y ago
> I worry about how that will affect uBlock Origin's long-term stability as a project. I wouldn’t be surprised if UBO has more users across all browsers than Firefox has users at all, and expect it’s at least within an order of magnitude. To imply it’s in any danger at all because a minor platform is recalcitrant is ridiculous.
- tandr 2y ago

actinium226 2y ago

But... ublock is like the main reason I use FF

pbronez 2y ago
You can continue to use Ublock Origin, which uses the v2 manifest. The delisted extension, Ublock Origin lite, is a v3 manifest plugin. Apparently it was created to address chrome blocking the v2 extension, but you can continue to use the v2 extension on Firefox
anonymous_sorry 2y ago
ublock origin is still available in the Firefox add-on store. The developer has pulled the 'lite' version, which is developed mainly for Chrome because Google killed some APIs the full version was using.

VoxPelli 2y ago

Because no one ever have taken over and compromised high profile extensions? Chrome battles with it a lot, see eg. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36146278 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36146278 I find Mozilla's process to be quite reassuring, but would be good to have alternative "addon stores" that also have a review process

sdflhasjd 2y ago
Mozilla is definitely doing the right thing by reviewing the extensions, but the issue here is that were wrong, they found issues that didn't exist (such as claiming it contained obfuscated code and collected private data). It appears the issues were found using simple heuristics (e.g they detected string pagead2.googlesyndication.com in a comment) and these detections weren't then manually reviewed as claimed, which is wasting everybody's time.
- protoster 2y ago
  Why does lying about manual review seem so commonplace? For example, during basically any YouTube copyright or moderation controversy, there is always "manual review" of videos that have obviously been caught in automated systems that in case of actual manual review, would be cleared of problems by any reasonable human.
  - nicce 2y ago
    Maybe "manual review" here is that someone "manually" runs the automation tool for that specific entity.
JohnBooty 2y ago
Absolutely. But: I don't think anybody is saying that high profile extensions should receive less scrutiny? For high-profile extensions, the impact is higher for both false negatives and false positives. So they should receive more attention. I do not know anything about Mozilla's internal procedures regarding add-on approvals. However, for a high profile extension like uBO/uBO Lite... it should either require multiple reviewers, or maybe just an escalation to a senior reviewer or something. You should never be a single human error away from a high impact mistake. Maybe they do that already, I dunno. But it seems hard for me to believe that multiple people approved uBO Lite's yoinking. Extensions are SUCH a crucial part of FF's appeal. And uBO/uBO is arguably the most important of them all.

poincaredisk 2y ago

>The last message from the developer in a now-closed GitHub issue shows an email from Mozilla admitting its fault and apologizing for the mistake. However, Raymond still pulled the extension from the Mozilla Add-ons Store, which means you can no longer find it on addons.mozilla.org. This seems pretty harsh. Mozilla made a mistake, Mozilla apologized, Mozilla fixed the mistake (maybe even improved their processes), and the author still pulls their choose and criticizes Mozilla. On my opinion either author took this a bit up personally, or cares about improving the review process and wants to make a strong point (with some hurt done for their project visibility).

VoxPelli 2y ago
Feels like they were just waiting for a reason to pull out – likely feels its a hassle to upload and have it review and just want everyone to trust them and keep it simple And I guess some people would claim that since its an open source addon no one can feel entitled to anything else
prmoustache 2y ago
[flagged]
latexr 2y ago
Remember why uBlock Origin exists in the first place: Raymond Hill was fed up with the chore of all the administrative crap around uBlock¹. They wanted it to be a hobby and it started feeling like a job. https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/issues/38#issuecomment-91871802 https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/issues/38#issuecomment-918... So it’s predictable they’d get fed up with that Mozilla review process and call it quits too. ¹ Which led them to hand the project to an unscrupulous rando that immediately tried to monetise it, leading Raymond to hate the outcome and having to decry his own previous project and ending up essentially where it all started but with a bunch of extra work in the middle.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
2y ago

latexr 2y ago

For anyone confused by the real title: > uBlock Origin Lite maker ends Firefox store support, slams Mozilla for hostile reviews “Review” here means the Mozilla review to allow the extension in the store, not user reviews of the extension.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

einpoklum 2y ago

Mozilla decided at some point to kill extensions - whether following Google Chrome or of its own volition. It took an axe to its ecosystem by disablign the loading of anything external other than WebExtensions - and note that it's just an artificial disabling, as internally, Firefox is still basically some bundled "extensions" over a C++ core. And now there's the "manifest v3" change, and making people jump through hoops to be on AMO. This is very sad, almost as much as the internal governance over there.

kristjank 2y ago

Another Mozilla classic...

timeon 2y ago
From the article: > uBlock Origin Lite is a Manifest V3-compatible version of the content blocker. It is less powerful, but since Google is disabling Manifest V2 support in Chrome, it is what will remain from uBlock Origin for Chromium-based browsers. > Does it affect uBlock Origin? The core extension remains available for Firefox. Unlike Google Chrome, Firefox will continue to support Manifest V2 extensions. Mozilla has not flagged this extensions or disabled it But somehow it is Mozilla who is the bad guy not Chromium-based browsers.
- yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
  > But somehow it is Mozilla who is the bad guy Sounds like it, yeah. > not Chromium-based browsers. Nobody said that.
- seszett 2y ago
  This story is about Mozilla removing the Lite/Manifest v3 version from Firefox's extensions, this has nothing to with Chromium. Now why does such a version even exist when the "normal" uBlock Origin is available on Firefox, I don't know. But there's no question it was a mistake by Mozilla. Mistakes do happen, I'm just explaining why it's only related to Mozilla's actions here.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- JadeNB 2y ago
  To be clear, the complaint is not about Manifest V2 vs. Manifest V3 (which is of course its own can of nonsense), but about Mozilla's review: > Mozilla says that it has reviewed the extension and found violations. The following claims were made: > The extension is not asking for consent for data collecting. > The extension contains "minified, concatenated or otherwise machine-generated code". > There is no privacy policy. The article points out that all three points are false, and this, or—I'll go ahead and trust the author of an extension I rely on heavily—what the author says: > In a follow-up, Hill criticized the "nonsensical and hostile review process" that put added burden on developers. Mozilla disabled all versions of the extension except for the very first one. It still flagged the extension for the very same reasons, but nevertheless decided to keep the outdated version up. is what makes Mozilla the bad guy here. (It also says Mozilla restored the extension a few days later, which is better than doubling down but, of course, worse than not making the ridiculous error in the first place.)

1GZ0 2y ago

Mozilla just can't help themselves, can they? Seriously, once Google is broken up and their donations to Mozilla stop, I won't be sad when Mozilla is forced to shut down.

jordanb 2y ago
These "lapses in judgement" are driven by Mozilla's brass representing the desires of their real masters. A post-Google Mozilla may be smaller, but I bet Firefox would be better and more popular.
- 1GZ0 2y ago
  I hope so, but I wouldn't count on it.
- noworriesnate 2y ago
  I wish they'd get smaller first, build up a fund so they could literally just invest in the stock market and run indefinitely off the returns, and only then go Google-free. That would be a more permanent solution.
  - yencabulator 2y ago
    That sounds like it'd make less money for the CEO, why would they be interested in that? Mozilla no longer does what is good for Firefox.
    - okanat 2y ago
      Yeah, I think getting sold to a company like Proton AG would be the better outcome for Firefox.

seba_dos1 2y ago

It's a blog post about something that happened a month ago and boils down to "some (obvious) mistake happened during review". Not much to see here.

bluGill 2y ago
That obvious mistakes can happen is itself a problem.
- flyingpenguin 2y ago
  Have you never been at work being forced to do something because you need money but you just are not feeling it that day? Obvious mistakes will ALWAYS happen, regardless of rules, regulations, human involvement, process, etc. It's thoughts like this "How can we make sure this doesn't happen again" "Its unacceptable than an obvious mistake happened" that make corporations so full of random rules, because they think it's possible to prevent things like this. What matters is the frequency with which they happen, and how gracefully you handle yourself after it happened.
  - hermannj314 2y ago
    "But the bias-variance tradeoff doesn't really apply to us" - every bureaucracy ever.
  - somerandom2407 2y ago
    And problems like this could still have been avoided if their system required review by a second party before blocking an addon by a developer of good standing who has addons with a huge number of users. Sure, the individual doing the check might be incompetent, but that doesn't mean that Raymond needed to be bothered by Mozilla about it - they could have handled it internally instead.
- talldayo 2y ago
  Obvious mistakes are an issue with most software stores. Less a matter of attention being paid, and more a consequence of scale: https://www.pcmag.com/news/beware-theres-a-fake-lastpass-app-on-apples-app-store https://www.pcmag.com/news/beware-theres-a-fake-lastpass-app...

InsomniacL 2y ago

> The organization issued an apology for the "mistake" and recommended to Hill to reach out whenever he has questions or concerns about a review. Before taking drastic action like pulling addons from the store, Mozilla should reach out if they have questions or concerns about a review.

elAhmo 2y ago
It appears all of the companies that are gatekeepers to apps, extensions and similar user-generated stuff are really quick to overreact and unless you are a high-profile person, have a lot of followers or a really popular app or an extension, good luck resolving it in a timely manner.
- suprjami 2y ago
  This is literally the most high profile person Mozilla has. He's carrying the entire browser.
- CaptainFever 2y ago
  On first glance, it really does seem to be the case, regardless if one is "big tech" (e.g. Apple) or a non-profit organization (e.g. Mozilla).
- nar001 2y ago
  Gorhill is a pretty high profile person considering uBlock Origin and yet still got it taken down and overreacted though. So the issues seem to run deeper than that.

AdmiralAsshat 2y ago

Oof. I get gorhill is pissed about the whole thing, but, this feels like cutting off your nose to spite your face. It's going to be much trickier for people to get uBO Lite onto their Firefox for Android installations now, or even if they can, they might just not bother. And, while I suppose gorhill could make the case that he's protesting this egregious process on behalf of the little guy, the fact is, he's not the little guy as far as Firefox add-ons go. uBO was one of the first (if not the first) 3rd-party addon to be offered as part of Firefox for Android after Mozilla's reorg started rolling out. He clearly has Mozilla's attention. I'm not sure what he gains from continued intransigence offers after Mozilla admits their mistake and apologizes.

Timshel 2y ago
He gains by not having to interact with them for UBOL. When you waste people's time sometimes an apology is not enough for them to want to continue to work with you ...
- 51Cards 2y ago
  An outlook like that will really limit who you work with in the future. I don't know anyone, corp or otherwise, that doesn't mess up from time to time. What matters is the acknowledgement of the mistake and taking steps to rectify it. IMO, as much as I highly respect his products, the dev pulled a hissy fit over a mistake.
  - yencabulator 2y ago
    So, half of what you say matters seems to be missing.
    - ForHackernews 2y ago
      They restored his extension (until he removed it again), what more do the Mozilla-haters want?
      - 2y ago

wolpoli 2y ago

> The organization issued an apology for the "mistake" and recommended to Hill to reach out whenever he has questions or concerns about a review. It's unclear why the author of the article decided that the word 'mistake' deserved the scary quote treatment.

greentxt 2y ago
Because there was a privacy policy it's hard to understand how that could be a mistake. The insinuation is the reviewer was not acting in hood faith.
- pdpi 2y ago
  Which brings us to: It's unclear why the author of the article decided that the reviewer was not acting in good faith.
  - jeroenhd 2y ago
    The reviewer asserts that the addon transmits data. It does not. That may not be malice, of course. It could just be incompetence (someone running an automated scanner and not verifying that the results are correct), someone trusted with a job they're not capable of doing, or maybe it's just Mozilla pretending someone reviewed the addon while using shitty AI like ChatGPT to do all the work. The email even directly links to resources that are supposedly "minified, concatenated or otherwise machine-generated". That's simply not true.
  - busterarm 2y ago
    Maybe it's the fact that 80+% of Mozilla's revenue comes directly from payment by Google who are extremely hostile to ad blockers (and UBO in particular) at the moment. That should be obvious, honestly. The extension is a threat to the reviewer's paycheck...
    - cholantesh 2y ago
      UBO isn't even the extension that was scrutinized, and besides how do you even know that the reviewer (if they are a human which seems open to question) is a Mozilla employee rather than a volunteer, and that they were not acting out of sheer incompetence?

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

SuperNinKenDo 2y ago

Fair play. uBO is THE killer extension, and apparently it never occured to Mozilla that if they were going to insist on using some hideous, Google style, machine led review process for extensions, perhaps they should at least make a carve out for one of the single most important extensions that exists. I can totally understand gorhill becoming completely insensed by the whole thing and refusing to play ball when Mozilla "realises their mistake". Their mistake was assuming he would simply put up with being subjected to the drudgery that so many extension and open-source developers allow themselves to be subjected to in return for little thanks and ever increasing demands. The outcome is far from ideal, but the fault, sadly, lies squarely with Mozilla. Real shame.

abhinavk 2y ago
This is about uBOL. I haven't seen much delays for the main extension. It is always more up to date on Firefox compared to Chrome/Edge.
- SuperNinKenDo 2y ago
  OK? So you support Mozilla's actions or something? What is the purpose of your comment?
  - jorams 2y ago
    The purpose of their comment is to correct your statement that: > perhaps they should at least make a carve out for one of the single most important extensions that exists. uBOL is not an important extension on Firefox.
    - witrak 2y ago
      >uBOL is not an important extension on Firefox. Perhaps you should read some earlier comments then you wouldn't say such things? Hints: Firefox mobile; range of privileges required.
      - 2y ago

ForHackernews 2y ago

So Mozilla goofed, apologised of their own accord and corrected the mistake? And in response this dev is throwing his toys out of the pram? Do I read this right?

jampekka 2y ago
I can see how having to jump pointless bureaucratic hoops in a volunteer project can cause throwing out toys.
- ForHackernews 2y ago
  What pointless hoops? The extension was restored.
  - jampekka 2y ago
    After pointless hoops. And the process seems to involve pointless hoops even when the review is not rejected. https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/issues/197 https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/issues/197
    - ForHackernews 2y ago
      Again, what pointless hoops? > After re-reviewing your extension, we have determined that the previous decision was incorrect and based on that determination, we have restored your add-on.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
- catapart 2y ago
  Yeah, it's kind of wild to see the general reaction to this being "the developer is being unreasonable". It's like... I, too, find it burdensome for a review that claims to be "manual" to suddenly flag a file my code has been utilizing for years, and puts the onus on me to refute it's findings. Not only is it trying to prove a negative, it's ridiculous that an unchanged file needs re-review for things like "is it minified?". As far as I can see, there are errors here and they are ALL on Mozilla's side. Better training, maybe, but probably just stop lying that a manual review has happened when it hasn't. And then, when you have whatever semi-automated review is being done flag a thing, then actually have a human review it. And, since that would be a firehose, implement simple standards to filter out spam and publish those standards - and what effect each infraction will have on the review process, including steps for remedy. Make them able to be completed as automatically as possible for the developers, so that you don't have to manually review, again. If it's a minification issue, require the devs to re-upload non-minified versions, check it automatically, and then allow the publish. I'm being simplistic and flip, but a reasonable generalization is just that bureaucracy should be imposed on the implementers of the bureaucracy, not the people who are trying to engage with it.

lol768 2y ago

Why does this extension even exist on AMO? The article says it's the "Lite/Manifest v3 version" - why would you ever install the inferior edition meant for legacy browsers, instead of the one that blocks ads properly that's meant for Firefox?

SSLy 2y ago
Because it's lighter on power usage, and that matters for firefox on android.
- panarky 2y ago
  And because it can block ads without infinite permission to read and change every site you visit.
- mmwelt 2y ago
  But now it's not even possible to use the add-on in Firefox for Android, as only add-ons from AMO can be installed.
  - mdaniel 2y ago
    I was curious if trying to load it via file:///storage/emulated/0/Download/... would work (as my recollection is that .xpi installation is content-type: sensitive) but insult-to-injury is that FF Nightly for Android searches for the string "file:///storage...", so they seemingly have nuked even the file: protocol handler for Android. Good times over there at Mozilla
    - Elfener 2y ago
      Pretty sure file:// is very broken in different ways on every android browser. For example, on kiwi browser typing in a file URL causes it to be searched, but using the "go to URL in clipboard" button (with the file url in your clipboard) works. Except when you randomly run into some weird android file permission issue and the browser just can't see certain files...
    - 2y ago

4bpp 2y ago

If I understand the timeline correctly here, it seems that gorhill overreacted, and I say that as someone who is usually harshly critical of everything Mozilla has done in the past 5+ years. It's hardly practical for Mozilla to manually review every add-on revision for safety in a timely manner, so they had the choice between automation and delays that would make add-on development a slog; automation though inevitably will cause false positives. What's the alternative? No pre-release review at all? As a user I would hope that this will not be the case, especially now that we have confirmation that flashy supply chain attacks are being executed in the wild. In fact the review policy protects gorhill himself too, since it makes him a bit less attractive as a target for a rubberhose attack (no point in blackmailing him to put in spyware if the spyware would be caught before release).

account42 2y ago
So? Mozilla inserted themselves as middlemen into addon delivery. Even for the so-called selfhosted addons. They can just not do that if doing it properly and without undue delays means more work than they can handle.
SSLy 2y ago
> No pre-release review at all? certainly not leaving only the oldest version of the extension up.
jeroenhd 2y ago
I'm not even surprised the addon got flagged. The linked files in the Github issue all had file names insinuating a direct connection to known trackers (which, of course, uBOL is blocking). Whatever automated scanning tool Mozilla uses probably latched on to "oh this is Google Tag Manager" and issued the warning that is normally handed out to addons that do include sketchy scripts like these. HOWEVER: the email clearly states: > Your Extension uBlock Origin Lite was manually reviewed by the Mozilla Add-ons team in an assessment performed on our own initiative of content that was submitted to Mozilla Add-ons Either that is a lie, or the manual reviewer that did the "review" doesn't understand that the automated tool they ran is capable of false positives. Nothing wrong with automated abuse assessments on a platform like Mozilla's, but don't lie in your communications about it (or hire people who know what they're doing when it comes to blocking addons).

seneca 2y ago

Mozilla is an absolute joke of an organization, and it's tragic that they are still the primary alternative to Google having a total monopoly on browsers. I suppose you shouldn't expect much from a company that is just there to maintain a facade to fend off regulators.

busterarm 2y ago
We're at a really dangerous point with browsers at the moment where there's really no consumer-friendly option available. I'm scared to say that Safari comes closest but you're just in Apple's walled garden then instead of someone elses'. Our only hope seems to lie with Ladybird, if that even ends up being good and it seems extensions aren't on the agenda at least for a while.
- slig 2y ago
  I'd say we're past that point. Less than 5% of global users (and going down) and NO mobile presence at all. The newer generation of devs and power users won't even care.
  - busterarm 2y ago
    You're absolutely right, but I'm trying to retain a shred of optimism, especially with a high amount of focus and interest on this area lately with projects like Ladybird and even new Gopher and Gemini clients. If the vast majority of endusers want to live in the moat, I can't stop them, but at least I'd like an alternative to explore interesting content even if my bank, etc will never support it. At least banks are regulated enough that I don't expect their websites to be running full-page video ads anytime soon.
    - x0x0 2y ago
      It's past time to give up on Mozilla. I told our dev teams to not even bother testing because, on our b2b site, Firefox usage was under 0.01%. That is not a typo. I can't spend dev time on that. They're doing the same, and now playing VC, an industry at which they have no apparent expertise.

sunaookami 2y ago

It's very annoying you have to submit your extension to gatekeepers to even distribute them to normal users. As gorhill said on GitHub it took days for a self-hosted version to be approved - that's unacceptable. Imagine you would need approval from Microsoft to distribute software. Not even Android is this closed. Enforcing signatures and removing XUL were the worst things Mozilla has ever done. And yes, Google does the same and it's even worse there but this it to be expected from them, but not from Mozilla.

Zak 2y ago
On desktop Firefox, you can download an extension from anywhere and install it. All they're gatekeeping is their own repository, which I think most of us would like them to do. I think mobile requires using a nightly build to install extensions from outside Mozilla's repository, and that suggests their thinking is becoming contaminated by the rest of the mobile ecosystem.
- Semaphor 2y ago
  No, the normal version blocks (at least permanent) installs. You need the developer version to install unsigned extensions.
  - Zak 2y ago
    I see. The extension I installed to test that actually is signed, though it's not in AMO. I don't like this. I know there have been issues with malicious extensions, so it makes sense to me that installing unsigned extensions is turned off by default, but requiring developer builds is a step too far.
  - pxc 2y ago
    What release made this change effective?
    - Semaphor 2y ago
      That was many years ago, there was a bit of a public complaint.

solarkraft 2y ago

It‘s not only that, Firefox also forces you to use the Developer edition (which updates about daily, FORCING you to restart it) if you want to install extensions that aren’t signed by Mozilla (e.g. your own). This behavior reminds of Apple. They say it‘s for security (where have I heard that before), yet Chrome doesn’t seem to need such a restriction. To me it seems like another step in many of Mozilla‘s enshittification.

rgreekguy 2y ago
I am pretty sure Chrome has also added the forced restart for a bit now. It might not show up right after the update, but it doesn't take long. I don't remember if it was straighforward, or just crashed new tabs.
aaronmdjones 2y ago
You don't have to use the developer edition to run unsigned addons; you can use the ESR version or nightly as well.

Dkuku 2y ago

This again shows the problem of automatic reviews. There should be a person name in every review that was responsible for it, currently it's blamed on our automated system. If the law would require someones name on it then I'm pretty sure the review process would be much better and the explanation would include more than an apology.

system7rocks 2y ago

Curious why Firefox doesn’t just start incorporating uBlock into the browser? Make it a standard feature that comes pre-installed… but maybe not automatically enabled? Thoughts?

bogwog 2y ago
Mozilla has been trying to become an ad company for a while now. A built-in ad blocker would mess that up for them.
- jjice 2y ago
  Have they? I haven't seen this. They have a lot of tracking protection built in, but no ad blocker. I'm not doubting you, I just haven't seen any action or posts on their part about this.
  - BenjiWiebe 2y ago
    You get sponsored content in the new tab page by default.
  - mossTechnician 2y ago
    They developed Privacy Preserving Attribution with Facebook to collect data from browsers. It's enabled by default in fresh Firefox installs. They also acquired an advertisement subsidiary, Anonym, earlier this year. So when Mozilla makes a statement about advertisements, it's worth a little extra scrutiny.
joemi 2y ago
So many people in this comment thread commenting stuff like this, that it should be included, it's the only reason to use Firefox, etc. Meanwhile I use Firefox every day at work without uBlock Origin or any other ad blockers, and it's perfectly fine. Why do you think they should it?

open-paren 2y ago

I manage a medium-sized browser extension at work. We also offer(ed) it on Firefox. But I have spent the past year struggling to get back into Mozilla store after a manual review. As far as I can tell, there are maybe two reviewers that are based in Europe (Romania?). The turn around time is long when I am in the US, and it has been rife with this same kind of "simple mistake" that takes 2 weeks to resolve. "You need a privacy policy"–we already have one. "You are using machine generated and minified code"–no you are looking at the built code, not the included source. "We cannot reproduce your source"-that's because you didn't follow instructions and are in the wrong directory. Very frustrating.

sureIy 2y ago
I had these issues too a few years ago. Now the review time is shorter than Chrome’s and hasn’t been flagged in a few years. However my extension has about 10k users, if that makes any difference.
jjice 2y ago
Also had these issues when working on my previous job's extension. The Firefox review process was a real nightmare to work with. Same heavy delays and misunderstandings your mentioned. Eventually the company just stopped updating the Firefox extension as often since usage was low and the review process was such a pain. Unfortunate for me, as the only engineer (maybe employee) at that company that used Firefox.
- whstl 2y ago
  Same here. We even had a special "mini" Firefox version that didn't require any additional Javascript build step, to make the review easy. But there were so many issues with the review and so few users that we just decided to give up.
- rightbyte 2y ago
  The whole extension change Mozilla forced on Firefox seems like some sort of sabotage. Mozilla sneaking in more and more spyware and ad friendly functionality seems in line with the same conspirators. And given how high profile all these changes are, it runs to the top of the company.

amiga386 2y ago

There's nothing more frustrating than being gatekept by incompetent, lying idiots. Sad day for users but the right choice by Hill. Mozilla wanted in on the $CURRENT_THING of being a "platform" where devs bow and scrape and they claim to be the great custodian of stuff, protector of users. Don't do this if you can't be competent at it. Devs _can_ leave, and they will if you fuck up often enough.

internet2000 2y ago

The sooner people realize Mozilla is not your friend, the better. They’ve been compromised by the Google money. Want an alternative to Chromium? Go support Servo or Ladybird, Firefox can’t be saved.

TZubiri 2y ago
Seems a bit extremist. I get being mad at microsoft for trying to charge for their software (gasp). I also get being mad at Chrome for trying to monetize their software (gasp) with ads. But now if you somehow get upset at Mozilla, it's more likely that you are the problem.
- lez 2y ago
  According to your argument, if Gorhill gets upset at Mozilla, then Gorhill is the problem? Who is the extremist here?
  - TZubiri 2y ago
    That's obtuse, I'm talking about users.
nosioptar 2y ago
Neither of those work with ublock. I'd sooner disconnect from the net than not use ublock. (Same reason i don't use qutebrowser.) I like SeaMonkey, it works with a legacy version of ublock. It's like using firefox back when it didnt suck.
conor- 2y ago
Blink is to Servo what Chromium is to Firefox. Supporting Servo on its own doesn't really move the needle a whole lot if it's missing all of the rest of the bits that make a comprehensive browser. Firefox is already using Servo (at least in the form of Quantum) under the hood and is still the best option available to prevent more of a complete Blink monoculture than already exists with every other major browser being Blink-based or some reskin/fork of Chromium

jkmegtu 2y ago

[flagged]

orthecreedence 2y ago
True, I never thought about it that way.
EasyMark 2y ago
/thread

nix0n 2y ago

If Raymond Hill endorsed a Firefox fork, I would switch to it immediately.

pessimizer 2y ago
Yes, uBlock should incorporate Firefox, rather than Firefox incorporating adblocking.

g-b-r 2y ago

A first effect of Mozilla's new "focus on AI"...

TZubiri 2y ago

First came NetScape and all was good. Then came Internet Explorer, but apparently bundling a web browser with an operating system was bad, ok. Then came Google's Chrome trying to profit from a web browser with ads, and that was deemed 'bad' again. Then it was not sufficient for the browser manufacturers to push no ads, but the consumer demands that the browser block ads from websites. Now the browser developer and the third party ad blocker have some fight over who gets to serve clients that not only don't pay, but don't want advertisers to foot the bill either. I have no sympathy for users that don't want to pay for software, or for developers that cater to that demographic. Enjoy fighting for crumbs. Sent from Microsoft Edge.

pessimizer 2y ago
Nobody is forcing you to put your website on the open internet, you're doing it because you're making a value judgement about how much money you can make by not closing or paywalling your system. Nobody cares what your business model is (that's your business and your decision barring illegality), and if it's not working for you, you should change it or shut down. Why should anyone have any sympathy for you?

totetsu 2y ago

Tangentially has anyone else noticed chrome extensions management page now saying unlock origin will soon be disables and to please find a replacement?

grahamj 2y ago
Yep. Fuck Google, I won’t use a desktop browser without it.
- silverliver 2y ago
  I wouldn't use a mobile browser without it either.
  - grahamj 2y ago
    Wish I could say the same but that would require using an OS by Google... we can't win :P Luckily there are other good options on the iOS front but I wish uBO was one of them.
eYrKEC2 2y ago
The replacement is Brave browser https://brave.com/ https://brave.com/. Skip the crypto. Enjoy the integrated ad blocking.

yapyap 2y ago

honestly we arent missing much by a manifest v3 ublock origin lite extension going away on firefox because firefox is still compatible with v2 so realistically we wouldnt have any use for it. nevertheless it still is a sucky situation

Havoc 2y ago

Those don’t seem like unreasonable asks on Moz side

Sephr 2y ago

Doesn't this behavior from Mozilla staff indicate that using Firefox extensions at all is a security issue? This shows that the reviewers may not be competent enough to catch actual malware uploaded to their add-ons site.

Aachen 2y ago
Yes. I never took the review process seriously, I assumed people could publish pretty much whatever. Today I learned it's meant to be tight as well as that you can't run your own code anymore; that it needs to go through review or you get to reinstall every time you start your browser. I've held out for a long time with Mozilla, trusting they thought it's a useful thing to do when they partner with Facebook to make privacy preserving adtech. This is a big ask of me though. I don't use it myself but I'm constantly running into limitations on Android and, at work, iOS because you can't simply do what you want on the devices without all sorts of hoops and fearmongering surrounding having actual access to your own device—the stuff I use my phone for simply doesn't run without root and one can't even make a full system backup without. It's not your device. Learning this about Firefox makes me feel it's not my browser...

vednig 2y ago

Automated process have so far managed to destroy the experience of the world wide web as a whole for developers and users both. And AI based tools seem like gas to this fire. Seems very soon web will die out of it's quality and only bots will remain.

NelsonMinar 2y ago

I'd hoped Google sabotaging uBlock Origin would be an opportunity for Mozilla to pick up some new users for Firefox. Lol.

neilv 2y ago

Gorhill's full uBlock Origin might be the only remaining selling point for Firefox. With the outrageous sum of money that the Mozilla top executive was recently taking for themself, they could've instead staffed an entire team of first-rate people, with the sole mission of doing whatever Mr. Gorhill needed.

move-on-by 2y ago
They are too busy working for the advertising companies Mr. Gorhill is blocking. Most recently adding ‘privacy preserving attribution’ - a feature that no user has asked for.
- paulryanrogers 2y ago
  People don't want 3P cookies tracking them around the web. They also don't want to pay to visit sites. Mozilla is trying to provide a middle path, I salute the effort.
  - ectospheno 2y ago
    I pay to visit many sites on the internet. Netflix, Hulu, Disney, Max, Twitch, etc. They provide value for my money. I don’t pay for news. Intelligent employees of news organizations would learn from that but no… Instead we get advertising apologists trying to gaslight me into thinking tracking is ok.
    - tremon 2y ago
      > Intelligent employees of news organizations would learn from that but no They did learn from it, that's why many "news" sites are now content-free entertainment, and why intelligent non-employees of news organizations complain that they're not providing news.
  - thoroughburro 2y ago
    Is everyone who claims the Internet cannot work without advertising only 20 years old? Why try to gaslight so many people who remember the Internet without advertising just fine. It was just a few decades ago!

qwertox 2y ago

I wish we could add PPAs to browsers just like we can in Debian/Ubuntu. Maybe the EU should look into this, and also allow the users to "weaken" their security in order to continue using Manifest Version 2.

Log_out_ 2y ago

If you would group those woes, by type of addon, i guess there is "irrelevant " and "a world of pain for those threatening google add revenues " .. the hand that feeds.

Lerc 2y ago

It seems to me that any platform with a review gateway should treat failing a review erroneously as a critical failure. In fact it does literally constitute denial-of-service. When a failure like this occurs, it needs more than an apology, it should have an incident report to show that the failure was understood and steps were taken to prevent future failures.

tatersolid 2y ago
From a security standpoint the opposite is true: false negatives are to be avoided at all costs, even when that posture increases false positives. There’s always a trade-off.
- eviks 2y ago
  Or there isn't and such level of competence just increases the chances of both types of negatives: there is no good reason to think that people who can't see the obvious in cases like this one will catch hidden vulnerabilities

andrewmcwatters 2y ago

We need an industry movement of just saying no to app stores.

throwaway984393 2y ago

This is why app stores / extension stores are simply an antipattern. The intent is to make usability easier, but it's actually useful functionality. Get rid of the app and extension stores and let users just install software they find on the internet. Safe and secure software is found on websites dedicated to reviewing them, like the Freshmeat of old, Tucows, etc.

AndrewKemendo 2y ago

Is it even possible to connect to the public Internet in a way that isn’t completely compromised by a corporation or state? TOR is busted at this point DNS have been MITMed Almost all hosts are under the control of a few players who are compelled by their respective states for ubiquitous and server monitoring Any advertised IP has to have tons of routing info and local pointers so local hosting is just as risky if not more What are the remaining options for a free (as in speech) internet?

lez 2y ago
Nostr.
- AndrewKemendo 2y ago
  Thanks I’ve heard of this but hadn’t looked too hard
- squarefoot 2y ago
  Technically intriguing, but the people involved don't inspire the slightest trust. https://archive.ph/TLwch https://archive.ph/TLwch ( https://www.businessinsider.com/jack-dorsey-fiatjaf-nostr-donation-2024-6 https://www.businessinsider.com/jack-dorsey-fiatjaf-nostr-do... )

ab_testing 2y ago

I think this is bad for the general population. Chrome is already planning to disable uBlock origin and many folks I know were ready to move browsers to Firefox to keep uBlock functionality. Now if uBlock is removed from Firefox extension store as well, there is no clear path to execute it from Github on managed machines. Sure if you are a developer and have admin rights, you can get it to work on Firefox, but a lot of people don't.

btown 2y ago
Per the article, uBlock Origin is still in the Firefox store at https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/ublock-origin/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/ublock-origin... ; it's the lighter MV3-based uBlock Origin Lite that was removed. So the general population can continue to use the full Origin. And because the original non-lite uBlock Origin supports much more complicated rulesets, it should be effective even without code updates... but it still is concerning that the same Mozilla errors that caused Origin Lite to be flagged might extend to time-sensitive updates to the original Origin as well.

dowakin 2y ago

Without Gorhill's uBlock Origin, the internet would be a really awful place. Thank you, Raymond!

thway15269037 2y ago

[flagged]

paul7986 2y ago

One of Firefox's value is uBlock origin for it's users yet not for Mozilla's money train Google and others. With uBlock, pop up blocker extensions and Mac Minis connected to my TVs (wireless mouse as remote) I have totally ad free Internet experience; every site there is & from my couch or in my rooms.

sfink 2y ago

That sucks. I work for Mozilla, but nowhere near Addons so I don't know what pressures they're under or whatever. But if I ran the zoo... this is gorhill we're talking about. We ought to just make him an add-on reviewer with full rights, and tell him it's ok if the only add-ons he reviews are his own. We do not need to vet either his competence or trustworthiness; we have vastly more historical data backing him up than on any contractor or employee. He's not a one-off either. We aren't nearly as volunteer-oriented as we used to be, sadly. But we still get many and major contributions from volunteers, and at least in my team (SpiderMonkey) there's no wall between external and paid contributors. (Except for the company-wide offsites, grr...) I don't see any reason why gorhill couldn't be made a full member of the review team, not that I'd expect him to be up for it right now given what's happened. That makes more sense to me than giving him a special pass that we could potentially give out to other people or organizations. He is a major contributor to Firefox's capability and success already, let him contribute reviews that are already a thing and provide value. (Again, only self-reviews would be just fine with me.) Now I need to figure out who to pester on Slack.

EasyMark 2y ago
I suspect he will simmer down a bit (I do not at all blame him for what he did, it has to be frustrating to dedicate thousands of hours into something just to have some clueless person pull it). I think it will be back inside of a week, it’s important and can save battery over regular ublock origin on Firefox.
- account42 2y ago
  > can save battery over regular ublock origin Comparing battery usage for tools with wildly different capabilites does not make sense.
- thoroughburro 2y ago
  > it’s important and can save battery over regular ublock origin on Firefox That sounds like a reason for Mozilla to simmer down and compromise, not gorhill.

Timber-6539 2y ago

I fully agree with Gorhill's decision to pull the addon. Any downgrade of user experience on Firefox is solely due to their addons review team. Maybe if more developers refuse to put up with such bullshit in the name of gatekeeping the extensions store, browser vendors will start acting properly.

glub103011 2y ago

[dead]

superkuh 2y ago

uBlock Origin 1.60 for desktop (not lite) has also been stuck in Mozilla review for a week now. On the firefox add-on site it is still 1.59 which doesn't really work for common things like youtube.

EasyMark 2y ago

I'm glad he put it back up, I for one use it knowing that it's saving me battery on my phone and it works quite well.

adam-p 2y ago

If you want another example of difficulty with the AMO review process: https://github.com/adam-p/markdown-here/issues/21 https://github.com/adam-p/markdown-here/issues/21 And that's just one of the examples; another resulted in me having to add a preprocessor that removes code at build-time, which was annoying. I like Firefox, but it wasn't always easy to justify the effort.

CatWChainsaw 2y ago

It seems like customer service/PR/UX has really taken a nosedive since the start of COVID or maybe 2022. The pendulum seems to be swinging from "the customer is always right" to "give me your money, shut the fuck up, and go away until I want your money again." Gorhill threw in the towel on uBOL after dealing with repeated bullshit from Mozilla, from the sounds of it. Multiple reviews, multiple people not understanding what the most famous FF extension in the world does, multiple appeals. Personally, in just the past month, USPS has dropped active email conversations twice; a vendor I use often at work has disabled important web pages and there's utter silence from their support email; Verizon is deprecating their messaging app in a month and I learned this through reddit; and my bank returned a canned response to an issue I raised two months ago. I remember a comment on this site from several months ago from someone who worked in customer service who shared a list of things that deprioritize you in a company's eyes, but it sounded like if you express the least bit of frustration at a bad experience, it goes on your permanent record. Companies, however, are allowed to shaft you however they please.

aprilnya 2y ago

FWIW, I've seen Firefox being unreasonable to other extensions as well — OldTwitter has been gone for a while and BlueBlocker has been trying to push an update to change the domain from Twitter to X for a while with no success...