31–40 of 442 posts
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…
Mozilla just can't help themselves, can they? Seriously, once Google is broken up and their donations to Mozilla stop, I won't be sad when Mozilla is forced to shut down.
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…
> Mozilla says that it has reviewed the extension and found violations. The following claims were made:
> The extension is not asking for consent for data collecting.
> The extension contains "minified, concatenated or otherwise machine-generated code".
> There is no privacy policy.
The article points out that all three points are false, and this, or—I'll go ahead and trust the author of an extension I rely on heavily—what the author says:
> In a follow-up, Hill criticized the "nonsensical and hostile review process" that put added burden on developers. Mozilla disabled all versions of the extension except for the very first one. It still flagged the extension for the very same reasons, but nevertheless decided to keep the outdated version up.
is what makes Mozilla the bad guy here. (It also says Mozilla restored the extension a few days later, which is better than doubling down but, of course, worse than not making the ridiculous error in the first place.)
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…
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…
tl;dr - continue using Firefox and installing uBlock Origin. If you develop Firefox plugins for distribution through their official channel beware the review process I guess.
Mozilla just can't help themselves, can they? Seriously, once Google is broken up and their donations to Mozilla stop, I won't be sad when Mozilla is forced to shut down.
These "lapses in judgement" are driven by Mozilla's brass representing the desires of their real masters. A post-Google Mozilla may be smaller, but I bet Firefox would be better and more popular.
Before taking drastic action like pulling addons from the store, Mozilla should reach out if they have questions or concerns about a review.
And, while I suppose gorhill could make the case that he's protesting this egregious process on behalf of the little guy, the fact is, he's not the little guy as far as Firefox add-ons go. uBO was one of the first (if not the first) 3rd-party addon to be offered as part of Firefox for Android after Mozilla's reorg started rolling out. He clearly has Mozilla's attention. I'm not sure what he gains from continued intransigence offers after Mozilla admits their mistake and apologizes.
It's a blog post about something that happened a month ago and boils down to "some (obvious) mistake happened during review". Not much to see here.