4 ms·

> 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

> 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?
- breakingcups 2y ago
  Lot of people in this thread not familiar with Hanlon's razor.. Obviously this could all just be incompetence. It's just a convenient excuse to do some more Mozilla-bashing, (lack of) facts be damned. Not that any of this excuses the experience Gorhill had, of course.
  - account42 2y ago
    You can be familiar with Hanlons's razor and disagree that it is a good rule for dealing with faceless corporations. If you excuse everything as bening incompetence then that's exactly how malicious actors will hide.
eviks 2y ago
Pretty clear: because it's a quote form the Mozilla's response "We apologize for the mistake and encourage"

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?
breakingcups 2y ago
Lot of people in this thread not familiar with Hanlon's razor.. Obviously this could all just be incompetence. It's just a convenient excuse to do some more Mozilla-bashing, (lack of) facts be damned. Not that any of this excuses the experience Gorhill had, of course.
- account42 2y ago
  You can be familiar with Hanlons's razor and disagree that it is a good rule for dealing with faceless corporations. If you excuse everything as bening incompetence then that's exactly how malicious actors will hide.

eviks 2y ago

Pretty clear: because it's a quote form the Mozilla's response "We apologize for the mistake and encourage"