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

A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

511–520 of 614 posts

Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store

#511

Post by ripdog »

magicalhippo wrote: post #503
ripdog wrote: post #489

Earlier 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.

> 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...

I won't say no, but these donations go to Mozilla Foundation and are used to advance their tech evangelism work, such as their successful lawsuit over net neutrality in the US.

Mozilla Corporation develops Firefox with their income from sources like their contract with Google and other search engines. Donations are not used for Firefox dev.

Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store

#512

Post by zamadatix »

nvrspyx wrote: post #398
zamadatix wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I mean you would think their process would be smart enough to say "Hey, we just rejected upload for product X that is THE MOST POPULAR PLUGIN. We haven't rejected any of the prior versions. Maybe let's get a human review. The extension in question only has 9,000 users.

As of January 2018, uBlock Origin has 10 million active users on Chrome. Where did you get 9,000?

From TFA.

Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store

#513

Post by soup10 »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #493
soup10 wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Your extension prevents billions of ads from being showed and we want that money."

They'd get +googol respect from me if they'd ever actually say that line. It sucks that companies can't just communicate honestly about their intentions.

Not exactly a secret, this is a quote from their Q1 earnings call:

"Let me now turn to our segment financial results. Starting with the Google segment, revenues were $36.2 billion, up 17% year-over-year. In terms of the revenue detail, Google Sites revenues were $25.7 billion in the quarter, up 17% year-over-year. In terms of dollar growth, results were led again by mobile search with a strong contribution from YouTube, followed by Desktop Search. Network revenues were $5 billion, up 8% year-on-year, continuing to reflect the performance of the primary drivers of growth, AdMob, followed by Google Ad Manager."

Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store

#514

Post by vatueil »

lightedman wrote: post #497
vatueil wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Parent comment might be referring to Kiwi Browser, a closed source fork of Chromium for Android that allows desktop extensions. Though it's currently available on the Android app store, and the reason it was briefly removed was because it included built-in background YouTube video playback, not ad-blocking. Of course, you could always get the app from another store. - Kiwi Browser (Play Store): https://play.google.co…

"Though it's currently available on the Android app store, and the reason it was briefly removed was because it included built-in background YouTube video playback," Oh, so being anti-competitive as their native youtube app will NOT let you play in the background unless you pay for it. Bingo.

Eh, that's sort of like saying Spotify is being "anti-competitive" when they block apps that give you Spotify Premium features for free.

Third-party apps for streaming services aren't meant to be a competitive market. At least with YouTube you can still download third-party apps elsewhere, such as youtube-dl for desktops or NewPipe on F-Droid, even if apps that violate YouTube's TOS are removed from Google's own app stores.

Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store

#515

Post by nullc »

a-nikolaev wrote: post #504
torben-friis wrote: post #18

I 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).…

This sort of evil behavior doesn't require intent or actual malice to form.

All it requires is that panic efforts to fix things be primarily allocated to problems that hurt google and not primarily allocated to things that hurt google's opponents. Or for infrastructure that has a history of hurting google to get disabled while infrastructure that has a history of hurting others gets ignored in favor of spending more time on new projects or fixing things that hurt google.

IMO characterizing it as involving malice ('pretend') actually _understates_ the problem. Google's actions are sometimes explicitly malicious, but they're even more often malicious OR indifferent, as that is a strict superset. If one day they decided to stop being actively evil this problem would not go away.

Maybe it could be reduced with the right kind of attitude towards introspecting and seeking out systemic causes of evil consequences even at their own expense. I heard there was once a company with a "don't be evil" mantra, but they abandoned it as they grew.

This also explains why the same evil conduct sometimes shows up in cases where no one can figure out any way that google actually benefits. It's a lot easier to cause harm through indifference than greed because greed requires that you have a way to benefit. Most conceivable harmful acts don't have much of a benefit for anyone.

Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store

#516

Post by magicalhippo »

ripdog wrote: post #511
magicalhippo wrote: post #503

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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...

I won't say no, but these donations go to Mozilla Foundation and are used to advance their tech evangelism work, such as their successful lawsuit over net neutrality in the US. Mozilla Corporation develops Firefox with their income from sources like their contract with Google and other search engines. Donations are not used for Firefox dev.

So what software is the Mozilla Foundation developing that's costing them over $200 million a year that isn't Firefox?

Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store

#517

Post by ripdog »

magicalhippo wrote: post #516
ripdog wrote: post #511

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I won't say no, but these donations go to Mozilla Foundation and are used to advance their tech evangelism work, such as their successful lawsuit over net neutrality in the US. Mozilla Corporation develops Firefox with their income from sources like their contract with Google and other search engines. Donations are not used for Firefox dev.

So what software is the Mozilla Foundation developing that's costing them over $200 million a year that isn't Firefox?

Sorry, what? Mozilla Foundation doesn't do software development.

Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store

#518

Post by magicalhippo »

ripdog wrote: post #517
magicalhippo wrote: post #516

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what software is the Mozilla Foundation developing that's costing them over $200 million a year that isn't Firefox?

Sorry, what? Mozilla Foundation doesn't do software development.

Their financial statement says they do.

https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/annualreport/2017/

The way it's worded it sounds like they do it through the Mozilla Corporation, which they own wholly own.

Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store

#519

Post by [deleted] »

joshka wrote: post #412

Fixed: https://www.reddit.com/r/chrome/comments/dgoymg/warning_ubo_... > Hey all, I'm Simeon, the developer advocate for Chrome extensions. This morning I heard from the review team; they've approved the current draft so next publish should go through. Unfortunately it's the weekend, so most folks are out, but I'm planning to follow up with u/gorhill4 with more details once I have them.

[deleted]

Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store

#520

Post by anoncake »

celdon25 wrote: post #457
vbezhenar wrote: post #445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can shout at bureaucrats. You have some basic rights. You can demand escalation of your issue. You can't do much when your Google account is banned.

Sounds more like the USSR than the USA

Under "communism", man oppresses man. Under capitalism, it's just the opposite.
Post reply on HN