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

ABP's resource usage is not that dramatic. It had a huge problem on Firefox due to an unsolved bug, but Mozilla solved it and now ABP runs without issues. I use ABP precisely because it has the notion of acceptable ads.

> I have a right to a clutter-free Internet that is not tracking me

This is where we disagree. No, you don't have such a right, not on other people's expense. What you do have is the right to not use services or products that don't follow your world view. You are free to choose and preferably vote with your wallet.

But you are not free to infringe on people's copyright. Do note that I'm purposely not using the word "stealing" because that's not the case here, but that doesn't mean that such actions don't harm other people or companies. And because of this mentality it's precisely why we can't have nice things.

Because you see, by using ad-blockers, we are not punishing the bad actors, we are not punishing the ones that sell people's activity to the highest bidder, we are not rewarding services like Vimeo which are asking for a monthly subscription, etc, etc. And this isn't just about ad-blocking. We can extend this talk to DRM just as easily. Besides a handful of exceptions, like Minecraft or Witcher, how do you like your DRM-enabled, free-to-play, pay-to-win, mindless counter games? Because I sure as hell am glad that I've outgrown this industry.

Case in point - Google has had Google Apps. For $5 per user per month, which is the price of 2 coffees, you get an ads-free Gmail experience and a contractual guarantee that they won't mine your data, your own domain so they can't lock you in, plus support which is actually good these days. And if you don't trust Google, you've got trustworthy alternatives, like FastMail. Out of the pool of people using ad-blockers and complaining about tracking, how many of them are paying for their personal email account, or for their cloud storage account? I bet that only a minority.

The MPAA and the RIAA have always made the argument that piracy leads to billions in losses. I personally don't agree with their judgement, because obviously, just because some shitty movie is pirated by somebody, that doesn't mean that in absence of piracy methods the pirate would have paid. But you know what - losses do happen, because when your eyeballs and your ears are focused on some shitty piece, it means you aren't focusing on something else and there are only 24 hours in the day (same problem the food industry has, a problem called "inelastic demand"). And so the britney spearses and the beyonces and the star wars movies in our society are winning anyways.

And I must say that I consider people attributing moral values or rights to their usage of ad-blockers to be hypocrites. You know, there's nothing wrong with our human nature that wants free stuff, but lets be honest with ourselves.

Could this just be survivorship bias? We don't hear about all the non-ad-blockers that got rejected by Apple or Google for the same reasons. If they wanted to ban apps like this, they would likely just ban them, instead of stirring the pot by taking them down and then putting them back online.

This is resolved now. Thanks sowbug !

Still worried about these "goofs" from walled gardens… Most of the time there is simply no way out for small developers.

If it goes against Google business model, I could see why they'd wanna see the source code. Maybe to serve adds that can bypass the algorithms.

I am fully aware of which app store this is.

Chrome web apps support NaCL. Why do JS-based apps need to have readable source code?

https://developer.chrome.com/native-client/devguide/distribu...