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

391–400 of 442 posts

Re: Gorhill pulls uBlock Origin Lite from Firefox store

#391

Post by latexr »

amiga386 wrote: post #383
latexr wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look, I’m not taking Mozilla’s side. As should be obvious by my other comments on this thread, I think Raymond Hill should do what they think is right for themselves and the project. But I’m trying to have a productive conversation on what would be a realistic response that Mozilla could have plausibly sent that would show true remorse and constitute a proper apology. Insulting them and giving absurd examples that wo…

That's what my mooted better-apology email covered. Acknowledge the failings of their processes. Mozilla should stop thinking they're a big swinging dick of a "platform" like Google and Apple are, instead accept they're reliant on continuing donations of time and effort by volunteers and it needs to keep them sweet . Edit: and if they want to continue thinking they're a "platform", they need to invest in more and bet…

> That's what my mooted better-apology email covered. Acknowledge the failings of their processes.

But you did it in a way that ridicules Mozilla. It was an unrealistic example of something they would never have sent. For what? There’s no point to that. Surely you can come up with something that is apologetic, honest, real, and that a manager at a company could approve. I was looking for something sensical, not a caricature.

> Mozilla should stop thinking (…)

That, and most of your post, gets to the heart of it. You’re displeased with Mozilla and want them to look bad. Look, I get it, I don’t like Mozilla’s direction either, I am plenty critical of them. But you can be critical and constructive. Your comments that made them look like absolute bozos are the kind of rhetoric any Mozilla employee would skip over as not being serious. I would like Mozilla to be better, not just burn them to the ground.

Re: Gorhill pulls uBlock Origin Lite from Firefox store

#392

Post by 8leggedFreak »

lenerdenator wrote: post #282
Rinzler89 wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Google's review team all are in India and they cannot write clear English. Which is ironic considering the reason they went to India and not other countries with cheap labor is that English is an official language there.

The problem is that the set of "Indians who can speak fluent English" and the set of "Indians who will work for the absolute lowest bid" are exclusive. And I don't blame them, really. These execs mistake "English is an official language" for "English is a widespread first language". Only 0.02% of Indians speak English as their first language, while total speakers (of first, second, or third language) are 10.6% of the…

omg I work with some Indian people since 2000, and I canonly understand about 80% of what ONE OF THEM says, the others less than 60%. :(

Re: Gorhill pulls uBlock Origin Lite from Firefox store

#393

Post by latexr »

saurik wrote: post #384
latexr wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Come on, be realistic. They’re not going to grovel and humiliate themselves over it, especially on a first apology contact. Expecting that kind of response would be ridiculous. The other comment was much more plausible. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41711187 I’m interested in what the original commenter thought, though.

That reply essentially sounds like "We realize you are in a position of power over us and so we should have been more careful; we thereby explicitly note the power imbalance and pledge to respect you--specifically, just you--a bit more because of it (though let's not get into the details of how)."... which is, I guess, an "apology" of sorts, but it isn't even close to an apology for the thing they actually did wrong.…

> but it isn't even close to an apology for the thing they actually did wrong.

I didn’t say the one I linked was perfect, I said it was more plausible. I don’t understand why everyone seems to have such a hard time understanding what that word means.

> and I guess you seem to be expecting it to be an exact quote?

That is exactly what I asked for. I asked what the email could have said. Words have meanings. Why oh why does that seem to be a novel concept?

> But like, maybe, sometimes, an apology inherently requires some humility

Yes, yes it does. I agree.

> then what, pray tell, even is an apology?

For crying out loud. HN, the community that is ridiculed everywhere else for being too literal, was today incapable of understanding a literal question.

Re: Gorhill pulls uBlock Origin Lite from Firefox store

#394

Post by finnthehuman »

latexr wrote: post #371
finnthehuman wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is baffling, and honestly worrying, that this has to be explained. Hey man, you’re the one that seems to be of the impression that the person sending form letter extension review responses is in a position in Mozilla to be able to do any of the shit you just said apologizes represent. I asked what’s it matter if they tick the apology box because they can’t actually apologize. I just don’t get why, in my previous…

> the impression that the person sending form letter extension review responses is in a position in Mozilla to be able to do any of the shit you just said apologizes represent. Yeah, that’s fair. > Rote apologies are not apologies, they’re simply someone saying what they believe are the right polite words for a situation. I agree. And rereading the email I also agree that their apology was lacklustre to say the least…

> Something like a personalised email (not from a form) from someone with a modicum of power (e.g. the manager of the add-ons division).

Okay… but I still get the feeling you’re talking about a non-apology here. No matter how hard they work to craft the right words, unless that manager does something differently they’re just being manipulative in addition to the original wrong they’re pretending to apologize for.

I know I’m not being maximally charitable here, but look how far you’ve strayed from “If the literal string ‘we apologize’ isn’t it, what is?”

Re: Gorhill pulls uBlock Origin Lite from Firefox store

#395

Post by latexr »

finnthehuman wrote: post #394
latexr wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the impression that the person sending form letter extension review responses is in a position in Mozilla to be able to do any of the shit you just said apologizes represent. Yeah, that’s fair. > Rote apologies are not apologies, they’re simply someone saying what they believe are the right polite words for a situation. I agree. And rereading the email I also agree that their apology was lacklustre to say the least…

> Something like a personalised email (not from a form) from someone with a modicum of power (e.g. the manager of the add-ons division). Okay… but I still get the feeling you’re talking about a non-apology here. No matter how hard they work to craft the right words, unless that manager does something differently they’re just being manipulative in addition to the original wrong they’re pretending to apologize for. I k…

> but look how far you’ve strayed from “If the literal string ‘we apologize’ isn’t it, what is?”

Wasn’t it clear that I changed my mind through the conversation? That’s the point for me, my goal isn’t to pick a position and claim I’m right to the end, but to learn and improve my views. Like I said:

> I agree. And rereading the email I also agree that their apology was lacklustre to say the least. Initially that seemed to be to have come from a position of authority, but I see I was wrong.

If the literal strings “I agree” and “I was wrong” don’t convey that I agree with your points and I think I was wrong, what does?

To be absolutely clear, I’m being tongue-in-cheek. I have no desire to continue this.

And to be even clearer, what I offered as a suggestion was a response to you saying there was “nothing” they could do. That’s the one part I disagree with by the end.

Re: Gorhill pulls uBlock Origin Lite from Firefox store

#396

Post by munch117 »

suprjami wrote: post #386
munch117 wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We all agree that this case is a very bad outcome for Mozilla. What I don't agree with, is that a system that is based on higher tiers for entire accounts, is necessarily better. If such a tier exists, then all the big players will apply pressure to be put in that tier. Suppose Amazon tries for that - surely they'll get it. And then they'll use it, not just for "the Amazon app", but for every crappy outsourced app th…

> What I don't agree with, is that a system that is based on higher tiers for entire accounts, is necessarily better. Almost every business looks after their biggest customer better than their smallest customer.

Sure. But now you're talking about the policy you expect, not the policy you want.

Re: Gorhill pulls uBlock Origin Lite from Firefox store

#397

Post by amiga386 »

latexr wrote: post #391
amiga386 wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's what my mooted better-apology email covered. Acknowledge the failings of their processes. Mozilla should stop thinking they're a big swinging dick of a "platform" like Google and Apple are, instead accept they're reliant on continuing donations of time and effort by volunteers and it needs to keep them sweet . Edit: and if they want to continue thinking they're a "platform", they need to invest in more and bet…

> That's what my mooted better-apology email covered. Acknowledge the failings of their processes. But you did it in a way that ridicules Mozilla. It was an unrealistic example of something they would never have sent. For what? There’s no point to that. Surely you can come up with something that is apologetic, honest, real, and that a manager at a company could approve. I was looking for something sensical, not a car…

The problem with Mozilla may be unrecoverable; that's my concern. They're currently spending Daddy Google's money like it's endless, schmoozing with SV investor types, pissing about chasing the latest trends and bunging money to their friends. Because they can.

I'm not sure that anything that anyone could say to them could change their minds.

My worry is that there are no organisations that campaign to keep the web open, fight against those who would lock it up and Balkanise it, and to offer a web browser that empowers its users and hasn't been captured by surveillance-capitalist money.

Mozilla don't need my help to look bad:

* https://www.pcmag.com/news/mozilla-temporarily-suspends-cryp...

* https://lunduke.locals.com/post/4387539/firefox-money-invest...

* https://www.theregister.com/2024/01/02/mozilla_in_2024_ai_pr...

* https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2024/02/mozilla-lays-off-60-...

* https://www.theregister.com/2024/06/24/mozilla_product_chief...

Re: Gorhill pulls uBlock Origin Lite from Firefox store

#398

Post by finnthehuman »

latexr wrote: post #395
finnthehuman wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Something like a personalised email (not from a form) from someone with a modicum of power (e.g. the manager of the add-ons division). Okay… but I still get the feeling you’re talking about a non-apology here. No matter how hard they work to craft the right words, unless that manager does something differently they’re just being manipulative in addition to the original wrong they’re pretending to apologize for. I k…

> but look how far you’ve strayed from “If the literal string ‘we apologize’ isn’t it, what is?” Wasn’t it clear that I changed my mind through the conversation? That’s the point for me, my goal isn’t to pick a position and claim I’m right to the end, but to learn and improve my views. Like I said: > I agree. And rereading the email I also agree that their apology was lacklustre to say the least. Initially that seeme…

> what I offered as a suggestion was a response to you saying there was “nothing”

There was an if clause separating different circumstances into “nothing” and “almost anything”.

And I stand by that. If an apology is actually meant it becomes trivial to come up with the words to apologize.

Laboring over the process of apologizing is a good sign you’re trying to avoid actually apologizing.

Re: Gorhill pulls uBlock Origin Lite from Firefox store

#399

Post by tandr »

thoroughburro wrote: post #372
Freak_NL wrote: post #5

I really hope Raymond Hill won't do the same for uBlock Origin (the manifest v2 version). I'm not too comfortable recommending others to install a self-hosted extension. It's a shame Mozilla and Raymond Hill can't/won't solve this together. I get that the review he got simply should not have happened for an extension like this (see the Github thread¹) and that he is simply done with bothering, but I worry about how t…

> I worry about how that will affect uBlock Origin's long-term stability as a project. I wouldn’t be surprised if UBO has more users across all browsers than Firefox has users at all, and expect it’s at least within an order of magnitude. To imply it’s in any danger at all because a minor platform is recalcitrant is ridiculous.

Easy. I have 3 browsers installed. All of them have uBO as a first thing installed.

Re: Gorhill pulls uBlock Origin Lite from Firefox store

#400

Post by paulryanrogers »

thoroughburro wrote: post #370
paulryanrogers wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People don't want 3P cookies tracking them around the web. They also don't want to pay to visit sites. Mozilla is trying to provide a middle path, I salute the effort.

Is everyone who claims the Internet cannot work without advertising only 20 years old? Why try to gaslight so many people who remember the Internet without advertising just fine. It was just a few decades ago!

I remember the BBS's, Compuserve, AOL, and the Internet before (ubiquitous) advertising. It was fun yet spartan.

In light of the alternatives (like paying for everything with discrete purchase or subscriptions), I'd prefer that advertising survive. Ideally with less invasive ways of detecting my interests.

My intention is certainly not to gaslight anyone. Not sure how you came to that conclusion.

Full disclosure, I work for a paywall SAAS.

Post reply on HN