If you’re into having a more privacy-by-default Conscious browsing experience I strongly suggest you try Brave. It’s awesome and for 6+ months all my work and home stuff and chrome plugins have worked flawlessly in it (all I had to google was how to enable chromecast). It’s fast, delightful, private, low battery consumption!
A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store
531–540 of 614 posts
Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store
#532Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sounds more like the USSR than the USA
Under "communism", man oppresses man. Under capitalism, it's just the opposite.
The "opposite" version of that quote makes less sense to me than "other way around" or "reverse". The opposite of "man oppresses man" would be "man doesn't oppress man", no...?
Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store
#533Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store
#534Earlier quoted context omitted.
So I thought/researched/wrote for 10+ years about possible legal frameworks and regulation for the 21st century; and in the end it seems an untenable proposition to 'force' such evolution by way of law, if we look at the actual history of most sectors — energy, construction, steel, media, telco... and now electronics and tech. I mean it's wishful thinking and whatever 'law' ends up being circumvented. Concentration i…
If it is impossible to prevent concentration (and I don't believe it is), then oligopolists will have to accept some legal obligations that smaller companies don't have. It is simply unacceptable that you can be kicked off extremely dominant platforms without explanation or recourse and often without even getting your data back. There has to be a higher barrier to obliterating someone's livelihood.
I think K0SM0S is making a more "turtles all the way down" point.
In that concentration is inevitable, not exempting any possible legal framework.
So government / legal isn't a solution, only radical innovation.
Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store
#535Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
There is no such thing as a megacorp's indifference to increasing their profits and achieving their strategic goals.
You can't plausibly claim indifference when Google's business processes that took many millions of dollars to set up and optimize promote Google's success by harming Google's competitors and taming Google's existential threats in user-hostile ways that range from perhaps subtle to outrageously obvious.
They didn't start doing this yesterday. No amount of plausible deniability can cover a gaping void this large.
Google's behaviour is entirely consistent with a huge company exercising its monopolistic power in a largely unregulated environment. They do whatever they can get away with.
Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store
#536Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 for…
It's not out of date, source on that claim? It's 1.22.4 just as it is in the Chrome store. https://i.imgur.com/c2voeqg.png
Oh, curious, I just assumed that since this issue was still open nothing had changed
Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store
#537Have been using Firefox Nightly for few weeks as only browser. Rock solid. Can recommend few extensions - https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/auto-tab-disc... - http://www.one-tab.com - https://addons.mozilla.org/en-GB/firefox/addon/multi-touch-z...
I'm currently using FF 70 beta on the Aurora update channel on Linux and so I've had no complaints. Performance has been on par with Chrome/Chromium and a huge leap over the FF 6x releases, especially on Linux.
Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store
#538Earlier quoted context omitted.
As of January 2018, uBlock Origin has 10 million active users on Chrome. Where did you get 9,000?
From TFA.
That’s the number of followers on github for the source code of the project not actual end users ..you will have to go their chrome web store page to see this .
Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store
#539>> Your item did not comply with the following section of our policy: An extension should have a single purpose that is clear to users. Any speculation on what the supposed multiple purposes would be? From past experience, is that type of thing something that is automatically flagged / determined programmatically or does a human reviewer of an extension make the call?
That is strange, how does Google programmatically decide if a extension is multi-purpose? By looking into browser calls?
Even then the previous rc0 release got approved , this was a minor patch on top of that
Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store
#540Earlier quoted context omitted.
From TFA.
That’s the number of followers on github for the source code of the project not actual end users ..you will have to go their chrome web store page to see this .
For the love of all that is holy can people please read the actual linked post we are talking about. It's only ~twice as long as this comment section and even just looking at the screenshot at the end would explain the situation.
The number of GitHub followers isn't even close to 9000, you just assumed that rather than bothering to look at the actual page.