4 ms·

I think GP meant that there's a big difference between Mozilla flagging the less-powerful uBlock as a mistake and Google intentionally deprecating the entire me

I think GP meant that there's a big difference between Mozilla flagging the less-powerful uBlock as a mistake and Google intentionally deprecating the entire mechanism that the more-powerful uBlock depends on, and that you can continue to use the original and more powerful version of uBlock on Firefox for the foreseeable future. Thus, Firefox should be the clear choice for people who want to block ads. That view is entirely consistent with reading the article, as in-fact the article points this out.

mossTechnician 2y ago
Mozilla is still the better company producing the better browser, in general, but as The Register says, it is now an ad company too. And the uBO Lite flagging caused more developers to confirm the difficulty of the review process and the minimal value of publishing to the Firefox store. Phrases like "useless time sink expensive", "a real nightmare to work with" and "we just decided to give up" (from three different devs) stand out to me. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41710183 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41710183