7 ms·

I think it’s reasonable to expect that one of Firefox’s most popular extension publishers gets a higher tier of review service. Gorhill (and other top extension

by yojo 2y ago

I think it’s reasonable to expect that one of Firefox’s most popular extension publishers gets a higher tier of review service. Gorhill (and other top extension devs) are providing real value to Firefox, and have demonstrated good behavior for years. This doesn’t mean they should get to publish whatever they want, but if a reviewer is about to reject a high profile plugin, they should get a second set of eyes on it. Which would have obviously caught the mistake here. Feels like another “Firefox is underinvested in developer relations” story, which is surprising given how much they rely on them. Edit: honestly the idea that gorhill doesn’t have a dedicated rep at Mozilla is baffling to me. According to their stats the extension has 8.4 million users. They should call him on the phone to let him know there’s a problem with his extension.

causi 2y ago
Yeah they've repeatedly used his name in advertising Firefox Mobile.
munch117 2y ago
But this is not about a high profile plugin. The high profile plugin is "uBlock Origin", and this is about "uBlock Origin Lite", which is a big thing for Chrome, but not for Firefox. Why would anyone want to use uBOL, when they have the option to use uBO? Perhaps Mozilla does have a higher tier of review, but it's for specific plugins, not for specific authors.
- umbra07 2y ago
  From what I remember, there are noticeable efficiency gains when using uBOL on mobile browsers.
- chimeracoder 2y ago
  > But this is not about a high profile plugin. The high profile plugin is "uBlock Origin", and this is about "uBlock Origin Lite", which is a big thing for Chrome, but not for Firefox. Why would anyone want to use uBOL, when they have the option to use uBO? uBlock Origin requires giving the extension full read and write permissions on every site you visit, which is a huge liability, security-wise. uBlock Origin Lite uses Manifest V3, which doesn't require providing those permissions to the extension. Perhaps you trust gorhill with that power, but it's pretty understandable why others might not want to give that power to a third party.
  - fwn 2y ago
    > Perhaps you trust gorhill with that power, but it's pretty understandable why others might not want to give that power to a third party. I have been using the extension, now called ublock origin, for longer than I have been using the Firefox browser. Mozilla is the third party in this relationship. In all those years, the extension project's principles were very strict, and the authors never disappointed. Mozilla, meanwhile, is just a constant stream of disappointments. It's so many things, really. Magic opt-out tracking here and there, ads in new tab windows, nuking almost the entire extension ecosystem on Android for a couple of years just to grind down the user base, etc. It never ends. You can also communicate with gorhill like a real person. Mozilla press communication is always a psychopathic mess of corporate speak. There is hardly anything in there. I'm not even sure which project, ublock origin or Firefox, has more users by now. My loyalties are pretty well sorted at this point.
  - zdragnar 2y ago
    This is exactly why Apple implemented the precursor to Chrome's v3 manifest in Safari (not to mention the performance implications). It's a lot easier to just accuse Google of acting in bad faith, and Mozilla of being their lapdogs, and ignore any possible evidence to the contrary.
    - chimeracoder 2y ago
      > It's a lot easier to just accuse Google of acting in bad faith, and Mozilla of being their lapdogs, and ignore any possible evidence to the contrary. There are two issues at play here. Manifest V3 is, undeniably, a security improvement over Manifest V2. Providing full read/write access to all websites is a huge security risk, and the fact that we're willing to do it is really a testament to how bad the state of the web is without adblockers. However, the final standardized version of Manifest V3 limited the size of content filters - essentially, limiting the number of ad sources that you could filter. This severely limits the utility of adblocking extensions. Mozilla responded to this by promising not to implement the cap in their implemention of Manifest V3 - ie, ignoring that part of the spec and allowing extensions to filter an unlimited number of sources in Firefox. Chrome and other browsers are sticking to the spec, though, including the cap on sources. I believe UBlock Origin Lite is a downgrade feature-wise from UBlock Origin, but that's because it's targeting both Firefox and non-Firefox browsers. In theory, a Manifest V3 version of UBlock Origin Lite designed for Firefox could provide the same functionality as the Manifest V2 UBlock Origin. Honestly, I hope someone (whether gorhill or someone else) takes up the mantle and does that, because there's no reason that Firefox users should have to use an adblocker with a less secure design, just because other browsers don't support it.
- weare138 2y ago
  But it's the same dev who's been active for over a decade and has a solid reputation. Users rely on these extensions. Removing a popular, well established extension without warning or apparently even making sure it was in violation of said policies to begin with is irresponsible. And the specific extension in question being a popular ad/tracker blocker while Mozilla has been cozying up to the adtech industry lately and selling access to Firefox user data isn't a good look for Mozilla. Maybe Mozilla is just being grossly mismanaged but this is all getting noticeably suspicious.
- EasyMark 2y ago
  It’s more efficient which can pay dividends in battery life on android, especially for those who have older phones.
  - munch117 2y ago
    Thanks for the info. Wikipedia describes uBOL solely as a reaction to Manifest V3, and that's what I was going by.
- yojo 2y ago
  Generally, anything published by the guy who maintains your most-installed plugin is by definition high profile. That’s why we’re talking about this case on HN. If Mozilla is providing tiered support by plugin rather than publisher, this latest kerfuffle is evidence that they should reconsider the approach. But if I were betting, I’d guess there’s no one at Mozilla whose job responsibilities include keeping their marquee plugin authors happy.
  - shadowgovt 2y ago
    And, in contrast, that job (or parallel jobs for different 'online stores') definitely exist at Google and Microsoft. At Google, there's a whole army of open-secret glad-handlers for liaising between high-profile or high-relevance Cloud customers and the development teams inside Google that work on Cloud (because sometimes a customer comes up with a novel way to use the tool that exposes the cracks in the abstraction and lets the underlying implementation leak out undesirably). Customers don't get to choose to be handled that way (though they can, of course, indirectly signal it by how much money they spend); it's Google's decision to maximize company value / security.
- shadowgovt 2y ago
  If it is, indeed, the case that they don't bump the entire account to a higher tier of service if one of their products justifies it, they've fundamentally conflated the technology with the humanity of the system and this is a predictable consequence. They're the browser with 2% market share. They're lucky he didn't also pull uBlock Origin because he felt insulted and let users figure it out. He doesn't owe Mozilla their tent-pole of "We make it harder for third-parties to track you", the tent-pole he set up for them for free.
  - munch117 2y ago
    We all agree that this case is a very bad outcome for Mozilla. What I don't agree with, is that a system that is based on higher tiers for entire accounts, is necessarily better. If such a tier exists, then all the big players will apply pressure to be put in that tier. Suppose Amazon tries for that - surely they'll get it. And then they'll use it, not just for "the Amazon app", but for every crappy outsourced app they make for any purpose. Placing a huge burden on Mozilla, who now will have to spend extra resources to hand-check a lot of crap that could have been auto-rejected, just in case, because effectively the burden of proof has been shifted. I'd like you all to try to abstract from this case for a second, and think about the strategic choice: Which is the better rule, evaluating apps, or evaluating accounts. Sure, now you're all thinking that you'll make a super-duper amalgam system that looks at both in some combination. That's the benefit of hindsight. But suppose you're making version 1, and you're keeping it simple. What would you start with?
    - shadowgovt 2y ago
      > Which is the better rule, evaluating apps, or evaluating accounts For now, evaluating apps. ... but only because gorhill decided not to go nuclear (and good on 'em for doing so). The unequal power dynamic you're painting of Amazon exists today, whether or not Amazon attempts to pressure Mozilla right now; they're at their discretion to decide that they'll only support a Firefox extension if Mozilla plays ball with a bunch of other crappy apps too (and then Mozilla can tell them to go pound sand, and then the users can't get to the Amazon app easily, and then someone writes a workaround... The human system is far, far squishier and more complicated than the technical system). > But suppose you're making version 1, and you're keeping it simple. Sadly, Mozilla does not have that luxury because they exist in an ecosystem of other corporations with web-store presences and it's incumbent upon them to be competitive if they want to survive in that configuration. If Google and Amazon can glad-hand high-value customers, Mozilla needs to learn how to do so also or risk those customers deciding the Mozilla ecosystem is more trouble than it's worth to participate in (because what do you get? 2% market share?).
guilhas 2y ago
Good point, they should be on the phone "Mr G how can our developers help you getting this extension approved" This developer one of the main reasons for many people to use Firefox, especially in this current chrome controversy manifestV2 vs V3 And ironically this uBOL success should be of very interest to Mozilla because if it had gained more success than the main one uBO then it would be one less reason for the company to invest resources into maintaining manifestV2
xnx 2y ago
Firefox is a thick wrapper around the core functionality of uBlock on Android. Without uBlock, the case for using Firefox is very weak.
- Jalad 2y ago
  uBlock on Firefox pretty much is the only reason I haven't ditched Android yet
  - xnx 2y ago
    Same, though I've switched to uBlock in Kiwi Browser.
    - hedora 2y ago
      I switched to ublock in orion on iOS. The remaining problem is that iOS has subpar podcast and Bluetooth support.
  - bravetraveler 2y ago
    I'd go as far as to say it's my lifeline for a smartphone. Outside of sleep-or-shitposting like this, I don't use the thing. I live as if it were a couple decades ago, working on a desktop computer. I've bought several laptops and failed to modernize. My entire life depends on the Internet and all of that, I'd prefer more distance to be honest.
- medstrom 2y ago
  This isn't about uBlock though. Just uBlock Origin Lite.
  - fsckboy 2y ago
    you mean, this isn't about uBlock Origin though. Just uBlock Origin Lite. plain old uBlock is another add-on which may no longer exist. (uBlock was the original original, but the same developer, gorhill, mistakenly let it slip into the wrong hands and it became a pay-to-play leaky ad blocker)
SergeAx 2y ago
uBlock Origin is THE reason I am using Firefox Mobile. The moment it gone - there's no sense in keeping the browser.
- rightbyte 2y ago
  Mozilla knows that. Which is why they excempted Ublock Origin from their user hostile all but that one extension ban on mobile. (In practice it was a ban. I think they called it something else.)
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

by yojo 2y ago

causi 2y ago

Yeah they've repeatedly used his name in advertising Firefox Mobile.

munch117 2y ago

But this is not about a high profile plugin. The high profile plugin is "uBlock Origin", and this is about "uBlock Origin Lite", which is a big thing for Chrome, but not for Firefox. Why would anyone want to use uBOL, when they have the option to use uBO? Perhaps Mozilla does have a higher tier of review, but it's for specific plugins, not for specific authors.

umbra07 2y ago
From what I remember, there are noticeable efficiency gains when using uBOL on mobile browsers.
chimeracoder 2y ago
> But this is not about a high profile plugin. The high profile plugin is "uBlock Origin", and this is about "uBlock Origin Lite", which is a big thing for Chrome, but not for Firefox. Why would anyone want to use uBOL, when they have the option to use uBO? uBlock Origin requires giving the extension full read and write permissions on every site you visit, which is a huge liability, security-wise. uBlock Origin Lite uses Manifest V3, which doesn't require providing those permissions to the extension. Perhaps you trust gorhill with that power, but it's pretty understandable why others might not want to give that power to a third party.
- fwn 2y ago
  > Perhaps you trust gorhill with that power, but it's pretty understandable why others might not want to give that power to a third party. I have been using the extension, now called ublock origin, for longer than I have been using the Firefox browser. Mozilla is the third party in this relationship. In all those years, the extension project's principles were very strict, and the authors never disappointed. Mozilla, meanwhile, is just a constant stream of disappointments. It's so many things, really. Magic opt-out tracking here and there, ads in new tab windows, nuking almost the entire extension ecosystem on Android for a couple of years just to grind down the user base, etc. It never ends. You can also communicate with gorhill like a real person. Mozilla press communication is always a psychopathic mess of corporate speak. There is hardly anything in there. I'm not even sure which project, ublock origin or Firefox, has more users by now. My loyalties are pretty well sorted at this point.
- zdragnar 2y ago
  This is exactly why Apple implemented the precursor to Chrome's v3 manifest in Safari (not to mention the performance implications). It's a lot easier to just accuse Google of acting in bad faith, and Mozilla of being their lapdogs, and ignore any possible evidence to the contrary.
  - chimeracoder 2y ago
    > It's a lot easier to just accuse Google of acting in bad faith, and Mozilla of being their lapdogs, and ignore any possible evidence to the contrary. There are two issues at play here. Manifest V3 is, undeniably, a security improvement over Manifest V2. Providing full read/write access to all websites is a huge security risk, and the fact that we're willing to do it is really a testament to how bad the state of the web is without adblockers. However, the final standardized version of Manifest V3 limited the size of content filters - essentially, limiting the number of ad sources that you could filter. This severely limits the utility of adblocking extensions. Mozilla responded to this by promising not to implement the cap in their implemention of Manifest V3 - ie, ignoring that part of the spec and allowing extensions to filter an unlimited number of sources in Firefox. Chrome and other browsers are sticking to the spec, though, including the cap on sources. I believe UBlock Origin Lite is a downgrade feature-wise from UBlock Origin, but that's because it's targeting both Firefox and non-Firefox browsers. In theory, a Manifest V3 version of UBlock Origin Lite designed for Firefox could provide the same functionality as the Manifest V2 UBlock Origin. Honestly, I hope someone (whether gorhill or someone else) takes up the mantle and does that, because there's no reason that Firefox users should have to use an adblocker with a less secure design, just because other browsers don't support it.
weare138 2y ago
But it's the same dev who's been active for over a decade and has a solid reputation. Users rely on these extensions. Removing a popular, well established extension without warning or apparently even making sure it was in violation of said policies to begin with is irresponsible. And the specific extension in question being a popular ad/tracker blocker while Mozilla has been cozying up to the adtech industry lately and selling access to Firefox user data isn't a good look for Mozilla. Maybe Mozilla is just being grossly mismanaged but this is all getting noticeably suspicious.
EasyMark 2y ago
It’s more efficient which can pay dividends in battery life on android, especially for those who have older phones.
- munch117 2y ago
  Thanks for the info. Wikipedia describes uBOL solely as a reaction to Manifest V3, and that's what I was going by.
yojo 2y ago
Generally, anything published by the guy who maintains your most-installed plugin is by definition high profile. That’s why we’re talking about this case on HN. If Mozilla is providing tiered support by plugin rather than publisher, this latest kerfuffle is evidence that they should reconsider the approach. But if I were betting, I’d guess there’s no one at Mozilla whose job responsibilities include keeping their marquee plugin authors happy.
- shadowgovt 2y ago
  And, in contrast, that job (or parallel jobs for different 'online stores') definitely exist at Google and Microsoft. At Google, there's a whole army of open-secret glad-handlers for liaising between high-profile or high-relevance Cloud customers and the development teams inside Google that work on Cloud (because sometimes a customer comes up with a novel way to use the tool that exposes the cracks in the abstraction and lets the underlying implementation leak out undesirably). Customers don't get to choose to be handled that way (though they can, of course, indirectly signal it by how much money they spend); it's Google's decision to maximize company value / security.
shadowgovt 2y ago
If it is, indeed, the case that they don't bump the entire account to a higher tier of service if one of their products justifies it, they've fundamentally conflated the technology with the humanity of the system and this is a predictable consequence. They're the browser with 2% market share. They're lucky he didn't also pull uBlock Origin because he felt insulted and let users figure it out. He doesn't owe Mozilla their tent-pole of "We make it harder for third-parties to track you", the tent-pole he set up for them for free.
- munch117 2y ago
  We all agree that this case is a very bad outcome for Mozilla. What I don't agree with, is that a system that is based on higher tiers for entire accounts, is necessarily better. If such a tier exists, then all the big players will apply pressure to be put in that tier. Suppose Amazon tries for that - surely they'll get it. And then they'll use it, not just for "the Amazon app", but for every crappy outsourced app they make for any purpose. Placing a huge burden on Mozilla, who now will have to spend extra resources to hand-check a lot of crap that could have been auto-rejected, just in case, because effectively the burden of proof has been shifted. I'd like you all to try to abstract from this case for a second, and think about the strategic choice: Which is the better rule, evaluating apps, or evaluating accounts. Sure, now you're all thinking that you'll make a super-duper amalgam system that looks at both in some combination. That's the benefit of hindsight. But suppose you're making version 1, and you're keeping it simple. What would you start with?
  - shadowgovt 2y ago
    > Which is the better rule, evaluating apps, or evaluating accounts For now, evaluating apps. ... but only because gorhill decided not to go nuclear (and good on 'em for doing so). The unequal power dynamic you're painting of Amazon exists today, whether or not Amazon attempts to pressure Mozilla right now; they're at their discretion to decide that they'll only support a Firefox extension if Mozilla plays ball with a bunch of other crappy apps too (and then Mozilla can tell them to go pound sand, and then the users can't get to the Amazon app easily, and then someone writes a workaround... The human system is far, far squishier and more complicated than the technical system). > But suppose you're making version 1, and you're keeping it simple. Sadly, Mozilla does not have that luxury because they exist in an ecosystem of other corporations with web-store presences and it's incumbent upon them to be competitive if they want to survive in that configuration. If Google and Amazon can glad-hand high-value customers, Mozilla needs to learn how to do so also or risk those customers deciding the Mozilla ecosystem is more trouble than it's worth to participate in (because what do you get? 2% market share?).

guilhas 2y ago

Good point, they should be on the phone "Mr G how can our developers help you getting this extension approved" This developer one of the main reasons for many people to use Firefox, especially in this current chrome controversy manifestV2 vs V3 And ironically this uBOL success should be of very interest to Mozilla because if it had gained more success than the main one uBO then it would be one less reason for the company to invest resources into maintaining manifestV2

xnx 2y ago

Firefox is a thick wrapper around the core functionality of uBlock on Android. Without uBlock, the case for using Firefox is very weak.

Jalad 2y ago
uBlock on Firefox pretty much is the only reason I haven't ditched Android yet
- xnx 2y ago
  Same, though I've switched to uBlock in Kiwi Browser.
  - hedora 2y ago
    I switched to ublock in orion on iOS. The remaining problem is that iOS has subpar podcast and Bluetooth support.
- bravetraveler 2y ago
  I'd go as far as to say it's my lifeline for a smartphone. Outside of sleep-or-shitposting like this, I don't use the thing. I live as if it were a couple decades ago, working on a desktop computer. I've bought several laptops and failed to modernize. My entire life depends on the Internet and all of that, I'd prefer more distance to be honest.
medstrom 2y ago
This isn't about uBlock though. Just uBlock Origin Lite.
- fsckboy 2y ago
  you mean, this isn't about uBlock Origin though. Just uBlock Origin Lite. plain old uBlock is another add-on which may no longer exist. (uBlock was the original original, but the same developer, gorhill, mistakenly let it slip into the wrong hands and it became a pay-to-play leaky ad blocker)

SergeAx 2y ago

uBlock Origin is THE reason I am using Firefox Mobile. The moment it gone - there's no sense in keeping the browser.

rightbyte 2y ago
Mozilla knows that. Which is why they excempted Ublock Origin from their user hostile all but that one extension ban on mobile. (In practice it was a ban. I think they called it something else.)

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]