3 ms·
Which brings us to: It's unclear why the author of the article decided that the reviewer was not acting in good faith.
by 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 agoThe 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 agoMaybe 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 agoUBO 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?