Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

An update to UBlock Origin was rejected by the Chrome Web Store

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 119 posts

Re: An update to UBlock Origin was rejected by the Chrome Web Store

#21

Post by fsaintjacques »

weirdentropy wrote: post #15

I've switched over from ABP to UBlock Origin. UBO is so much faster than ABP, uses fewer resources, and does a better job. And, most importantly, they do not get in bed with the ad companies to arrange for acceptable ads. There are no acceptable ads in my view (no pun intended). I block ads precisely because they use my bandwidth, they are a vector for malware, they interfere with my viewing of websites, they track m…

Second time I see your comment, would you care sharing how you accomplish all this?

Re: An update to UBlock Origin was rejected by the Chrome Web Store

#22

Post by deelowe »

gorhill wrote: post #13
eli wrote: post #3

Headline is wrong. An update to the plugin was rejected (with the option to resubmit), but the previous version is clearly still in the store: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ublock-origin/cjpa... I empathize with the developer, but Occam's Razor suggests this isn't anything more than a typically crummy vague Walled Garden app store rejection. I'd take their advice and re-submit.

Yes, it still is in the store as of now. However the email I received is titled "Chrome Web Store: Removal notification for uBlock Origin". In any case, it's just impossible for me to figure what is the issue. I could spend a inordinate amount of time guess-shuffling code around for no result. Assuming the email title is misleading -- let's say uBlock Origin won't be removed from the Chrome store, there is nothing sp…

It looks like 1.3.2 was released a day ago. Have you tried reaching out to get clarification? I'd give it a week or two before buying pitchforks and torches. The app reviewers are fallible just like anyone els. It seems that you never have had this issue before.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor

Re: An update to UBlock Origin was rejected by the Chrome Web Store

#23

Post by ep103 »

weirdentropy wrote: post #15

I've switched over from ABP to UBlock Origin. UBO is so much faster than ABP, uses fewer resources, and does a better job. And, most importantly, they do not get in bed with the ad companies to arrange for acceptable ads. There are no acceptable ads in my view (no pun intended). I block ads precisely because they use my bandwidth, they are a vector for malware, they interfere with my viewing of websites, they track m…

well hopefully you don't have verizon, as they've announced plans to inject customer specific identifiers into all requests seen from their customers for tracking reporting and reselling. just fyi

Re: An update to UBlock Origin was rejected by the Chrome Web Store

#25

Post by noxToken »

eli wrote: post #3

Headline is wrong. An update to the plugin was rejected (with the option to resubmit), but the previous version is clearly still in the store: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ublock-origin/cjpa... I empathize with the developer, but Occam's Razor suggests this isn't anything more than a typically crummy vague Walled Garden app store rejection. I'd take their advice and re-submit.

But if the headline was "uBlock Origin Update Rejected from Chrome Web Store", we couldn't insight a digital riot. If something negative happens to a product or software that we like, it's better to burn everything to ground first with our knee-jerk reactions rather than looking for an explanation.

This is the same thing that we chastise other people for. Yet here we are ready to switch to FireFox and Edge due to what is surely an automated misunderstanding. We are better than this. If not, we _should_ be better than this.

Re: An update to UBlock Origin was rejected by the Chrome Web Store

#26

Post by drzaiusapelord »

AdmiralAsshat wrote: post #6

"Where possible, make as much of your code visible in the package as you can. If some of your app's logic is hidden and it appears to be suspicious, we may remove it." This is the policy it "broke" apparently. Despite the entire app being open source and commented, someone at Google could not understand his code and hence found it obfuscated or "suspicious".

Textbook harassment here. Google is upset these guys are hurting ad impressions. I wonder if this is the beginning of an ad blocking backlash.

Re: An update to UBlock Origin was rejected by the Chrome Web Store

#28

Post by emodendroket »

deelowe wrote: post #16
cballard wrote: post #4

Apps that do controversial things with respect to Apple or Google seem to get rejected for seemingly random technical reasons a lot. What does it even mean for code in a packaged program to be "visible"? It should be invisible! That's the whole point of packaging!

> Apps that do controversial things with respect to Apple or Google seem to get rejected for seemingly random technical reasons a lot. This is regarding the chrome web store, not the play store. Also, I'm aware of Apple taking a pretty heavy handed approach, but I'm not convinced Google has a history of this. > What does it even mean for code in a packaged program to be "visible"? It should be invisible! That's the w…

It's hard to wonder if Google doesn't "have a history" when they banned all ad blockers from the Play Store and are (maybe) rejecting ad blockers from the Chrome Web store for vague technical reasons, particularly when their business model revolves around ads.

Re: An update to UBlock Origin was rejected by the Chrome Web Store

#29

Post by bambax »

Besides findability, what benefits does the Chrome Web Store provide to extension developers? Does Chrome prevent or somehow limit the functionality of extensions that aren't coming from the store?

(I developed a few Chrome extensions 5 years ago and used to distribute them "by hand" to users, but haven't much followed what has happened since).

Re: An update to UBlock Origin was rejected by the Chrome Web Store

#30

Post by weirdentropy »

ep103 wrote: post #23
weirdentropy wrote: post #15

I've switched over from ABP to UBlock Origin. UBO is so much faster than ABP, uses fewer resources, and does a better job. And, most importantly, they do not get in bed with the ad companies to arrange for acceptable ads. There are no acceptable ads in my view (no pun intended). I block ads precisely because they use my bandwidth, they are a vector for malware, they interfere with my viewing of websites, they track m…

well hopefully you don't have verizon, as they've announced plans to inject customer specific identifiers into all requests seen from their customers for tracking reporting and reselling. just fyi

Yes, I saw this, but it doesn't affect HTTPS traffic.
Post reply on HN