Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed. Plus it doesnt have Picture-in-picture But I use FF as my main
https://hacks.mozilla.org/2019/07/testing-picture-in-picture...
Only on Windows.
A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store
501–510 of 614 posts
Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store
#502Earlier quoted context omitted.
Armin here, the developer of Search by Image. After that experience I felt it's necessary to share the entire discussion. That is how Google treats developers in exchange for enriching their platform, with a list of nonsense allegations, and if you speak up, retaliation. This practice is well documented at this point, and the best way out for those targeted is to hold your head down and maybe plead for help on social…
On the other hand, blindly accepting browser extension upgrades is a huge security vulnerability. There was a post some time ago about how popular extension projects often get bought by adware/spyware companies and they were able to publish malicious changes directly to user's browsers without any validation.
Modern tech companies enjoy maintaining the delusion that developers that make apps and content on their platforms are extensions of their employees and contractors and they have the right to dictate and control their development. This is obviously bullshit. The security argument is a red herring since a third party can maintain a trusted software list without all the conflicts of interest.
Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store
#503Earlier quoted context omitted.
You mean the browser developed by Mozilla which is basically bankrolled by Google?
Well yes, but technologically, it's the only non-KHTML descendant browser engine in development. Mozilla is working on the revenue issue, though it is a considerable concern. The best thing we can do to help Mozilla is to simply use Firefox and try and bump its market share numbers up.
> he best thing we can do to help Mozilla is to simply use Firefox and try and bump its market share numbers up.
And donate...
Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store
#504I wonder if it's been on purpose or just, as always, their automatic algorithms being imposible to contest when they're wrong. Honestly, Google's (and general tech giants') willingness to let people's lives be caught in the cracks of their algorithms in their pursue for scalability scares me more than any ideology they could push. More and more, we're seeing developers and content creators being banned or demonetised…
Google is famous for this type of attrition damage tactic. Read this: https://twitter.com/johnath/status/1116871231792455686
It goes like this: Google bans or disables something, then they pretend they made a mistake, but still delay fixing it for days or weeks while giving amateurish explanations for these delays. In the end what this tactic achieves, is hampering a software Google disapproves (or competes against). The tired users switches to a different software (made by google?) or stop using the software altogether. The same tactic targets competing developers.
Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store
#505Wow, this scares me a lot. So if you upload an update to an existing extension that has many users, if a human reviewer arbitrarily decides to reject the update, the entire extension is removed from the store? Or just the recent update? If the entire extension is removed that makes updating an existing app a terrifying process. Do they apply the same standards to top paid extensions like LastPass and Grammarly? I run…
Correct, it may get pulled at any time for any reason. Any DMCA notice (valid or invalid) will also typically pull your extension for about a month, if you're lucky. If you rely on your extension to pay rent you should probably try to make sure you have a personal contact somewhere in that part of Google because they will probably break it eventually.
Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store
#506Earlier quoted context omitted.
Armin here, the developer of Search by Image. After that experience I felt it's necessary to share the entire discussion. That is how Google treats developers in exchange for enriching their platform, with a list of nonsense allegations, and if you speak up, retaliation. This practice is well documented at this point, and the best way out for those targeted is to hold your head down and maybe plead for help on social…
On the other hand, blindly accepting browser extension upgrades is a huge security vulnerability. There was a post some time ago about how popular extension projects often get bought by adware/spyware companies and they were able to publish malicious changes directly to user's browsers without any validation.
Many crytocurrency users have a browser extension based "wallet". A malicious update pushed to Metamask, the most popular ethereum wallet application, could end very badly.
Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store
#507There should be a threshold of "number of active extension users" where Google has a human provide an actual explanation when rejecting an update.
The reason there's not is that the store is filled with extensions that have enough users to deserve an actual explanation. At scale they'd just need to have a sizable review staff with actual training and policies, but they don't want to.
Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store
#508Earlier quoted context omitted.
You mean the browser developed by Mozilla which is basically bankrolled by Google?
Well yes, but technologically, it's the only non-KHTML descendant browser engine in development. Mozilla is working on the revenue issue, though it is a considerable concern. The best thing we can do to help Mozilla is to simply use Firefox and try and bump its market share numbers up.
Genuine question: what are they doing to alleviate the issues of Gecko rendering compared to Blink? As I understand it, most developers target Chrome, so they make it work with Blink, not Gecko.
Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store
#509Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well yes, but technologically, it's the only non-KHTML descendant browser engine in development. Mozilla is working on the revenue issue, though it is a considerable concern. The best thing we can do to help Mozilla is to simply use Firefox and try and bump its market share numbers up.
Genuine question: what are they doing to alleviate the issues of Gecko rendering compared to Blink? As I understand it, most developers target Chrome, so they make it work with Blink, not Gecko.
I don't think it's a major issue (yet?), but work around this area is tracked under the "Web Compatibility" product in Bugzilla.
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/buglist.cgi?product=Web%20Compa...
Bugs are fixed where necessary, but I don't think they've stooped to implementing Chrome's bugs yet. Most of the work is social - reaching out to owners of websites which are broken in Firefox and asking them to fix them.
Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store
#510Earlier quoted context omitted.
For those of us on Microsoft Edge, it's time to uninstall uBlock Origin[0] from the Chrome Store and install it from the Microsoft Store[1]. It's about time someone seriously challenges and smokes Google's boots. [0] https://i.imgur.com/ZGxI3xO.png [1] https://microsoftedge.microsoft.com/insider-addons/detail/od...
The MS Edge one is offered by "Nik Rolls" and not "Raymond Hill (gorhill)" like the one on the Chrome Web Store and Mozilla AMO. I'm guessing they're not the same person so why should I trust this extension instead?
I tracked this down earlier today while I was considering what I would tell people to switch to, looks like
- The official ublock repo links to it, so it's reasonably trustworthy, but it's explicitly not controlled by Gorhil. The author has what appears to be an open offer to give control of it to him.
- It's out of date.
- There is no real plan to make it up-to-date until edge finishes moving to being a chromium fork.