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

Gorhill pulls uBlock Origin Lite from Firefox store

neowin.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 442 posts

Re: Gorhill pulls uBlock Origin Lite from Firefox store

#21

Post by JohnBooty »

VoxPelli wrote: post #7

Because no one ever have taken over and compromised high profile extensions? Chrome battles with it a lot, see eg. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36146278 I find Mozilla's process to be quite reassuring, but would be good to have alternative "addon stores" that also have a review process

Absolutely. But: I don't think anybody is saying that high profile extensions should receive less scrutiny?

For high-profile extensions, the impact is higher for both false negatives and false positives. So they should receive more attention.

I do not know anything about Mozilla's internal procedures regarding add-on approvals. However, for a high profile extension like uBO/uBO Lite... it should either require multiple reviewers, or maybe just an escalation to a senior reviewer or something. You should never be a single human error away from a high impact mistake.

Maybe they do that already, I dunno. But it seems hard for me to believe that multiple people approved uBO Lite's yoinking.

Extensions are SUCH a crucial part of FF's appeal. And uBO/uBO is arguably the most important of them all.

Re: Gorhill pulls uBlock Origin Lite from Firefox store

#22

Post by JohnBooty »

jqpabc123 wrote: post #3

[flagged]

Generally, yes: follow the money.

But that does not mean that random errors can be always attributed to malice or financial interests.

You think that's how Mozilla would kiss up to Google? "Hey, we disabled an ad-blocking extension (although not its more popular and powerful big brother) for half a day! And then we put it back up!"

If I'm Google, that is not really thrilling me or making an impact.

Also, the Google/Mozilla relationship goes both ways. Mozilla is dependent on Google for cash, which I absolutely dislike.

However, Google also needs Mozilla as a hedge against antitrust claims. From an antitrust standpoint the ideal situation for Google is that Google continues to fund Mozilla, and Mozilla continues to allow ad-blocking (looks good to regulators) while continuing to have a tiny market share (so that FF's uBlock users don't actually have much of an impact on Google's advertising biz)

Re: Gorhill pulls uBlock Origin Lite from Firefox store

#23

Post by finnthehuman »

VoxPelli wrote: post #7

Because no one ever have taken over and compromised high profile extensions? Chrome battles with it a lot, see eg. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36146278 I find Mozilla's process to be quite reassuring, but would be good to have alternative "addon stores" that also have a review process

There is a difference between questioning if a review process should exist for the official addon index and questioning if the implementation is any good.

You address the former when it seems like the issue is the later.

Re: Gorhill pulls uBlock Origin Lite from Firefox store

#24

Post by latexr »

poincaredisk wrote: post #8

>The last message from the developer in a now-closed GitHub issue shows an email from Mozilla admitting its fault and apologizing for the mistake. However, Raymond still pulled the extension from the Mozilla Add-ons Store, which means you can no longer find it on addons.mozilla.org. This seems pretty harsh. Mozilla made a mistake, Mozilla apologized, Mozilla fixed the mistake (maybe even improved their processes), an…

Remember why uBlock Origin exists in the first place: Raymond Hill was fed up with the chore of all the administrative crap around uBlock¹. They wanted it to be a hobby and it started feeling like a job.

https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/issues/38#issuecomment-918...

So it’s predictable they’d get fed up with that Mozilla review process and call it quits too.

¹ Which led them to hand the project to an unscrupulous rando that immediately tried to monetise it, leading Raymond to hate the outcome and having to decry his own previous project and ending up essentially where it all started but with a bunch of extra work in the middle.

Re: Gorhill pulls uBlock Origin Lite from Firefox store

#25

Post by finnthehuman »

poincaredisk wrote: post #8

>The last message from the developer in a now-closed GitHub issue shows an email from Mozilla admitting its fault and apologizing for the mistake. However, Raymond still pulled the extension from the Mozilla Add-ons Store, which means you can no longer find it on addons.mozilla.org. This seems pretty harsh. Mozilla made a mistake, Mozilla apologized, Mozilla fixed the mistake (maybe even improved their processes), an…

I can’t fault gorhill for not wanting to play the “give large rich organization infinite second chances” game. Sometimes enough is enough even if you think you’d act differently in his shoes.

> Mozilla apologized

No they didn’t. Now I’m not here to play apology police or anything. But that’s just a perfunctory customer service voice statement which happened to include the word “apologize”. And that’s fine. Nobody expects more. We can acknowledge it for what it is tho.

Re: Gorhill pulls uBlock Origin Lite from Firefox store

#27

Post by timeon »

kristjank wrote: post #26

Another Mozilla classic...

From the article:

> uBlock Origin Lite is a Manifest V3-compatible version of the content blocker. It is less powerful, but since Google is disabling Manifest V2 support in Chrome, it is what will remain from uBlock Origin for Chromium-based browsers.

> Does it affect uBlock Origin? The core extension remains available for Firefox. Unlike Google Chrome, Firefox will continue to support Manifest V2 extensions. Mozilla has not flagged this extensions or disabled it

But somehow it is Mozilla who is the bad guy not Chromium-based browsers.

Re: Gorhill pulls uBlock Origin Lite from Firefox store

#28

Post by yjftsjthsd-h »

timeon wrote: post #27
kristjank wrote: post #26

Another Mozilla classic...

From the article: > uBlock Origin Lite is a Manifest V3-compatible version of the content blocker. It is less powerful, but since Google is disabling Manifest V2 support in Chrome, it is what will remain from uBlock Origin for Chromium-based browsers. > Does it affect uBlock Origin? The core extension remains available for Firefox. Unlike Google Chrome, Firefox will continue to support Manifest V2 extensions. Mozilla…

> But somehow it is Mozilla who is the bad guy

Sounds like it, yeah.

> not Chromium-based browsers.

Nobody said that.

Re: Gorhill pulls uBlock Origin Lite from Firefox store

#29

Post by seszett »

timeon wrote: post #27
kristjank wrote: post #26

Another Mozilla classic...

From the article: > uBlock Origin Lite is a Manifest V3-compatible version of the content blocker. It is less powerful, but since Google is disabling Manifest V2 support in Chrome, it is what will remain from uBlock Origin for Chromium-based browsers. > Does it affect uBlock Origin? The core extension remains available for Firefox. Unlike Google Chrome, Firefox will continue to support Manifest V2 extensions. Mozilla…

This story is about Mozilla removing the Lite/Manifest v3 version from Firefox's extensions, this has nothing to with Chromium.

Now why does such a version even exist when the "normal" uBlock Origin is available on Firefox, I don't know. But there's no question it was a mistake by Mozilla. Mistakes do happen, I'm just explaining why it's only related to Mozilla's actions here.

Post reply on HN