• vintageballs@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    Deutsch
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    3 hours ago

    Probably due to automatic extension reviews by Mozilla.

    Sad that it happened, but at least it doesn’t impact the actual uBlock, only the lite version for which I honestly see no purpose in Firefox anyways.

  • MyNameIsRichard@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    18
    ·
    2 hours ago

    It’s probably a coincidence that shortly after Mozilla acquires an ad company, they “accidentally” remove an ad blocker.

    • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      2 hours ago

      They made an error and quickly corrected. It’s the addon author who threw a fit and removed the addon.

      This just makes me worried to rely on uBO but more because what if the author just fucks off because someone else pissed them off.

      • mudmaniac@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        It would seem that the ubo lite version was made specifically to cater to chrome and manifest v3 if I’m not mistaken…

        In the end the author may have just felt it was too much energy keeping a pared down chrome version on Firefox when the full version is present and working. Especially after this particular drama.

        • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 hours ago

          Some say the Lite one was good for mobile since it was lighter weight but I didn’t notice a difference tbh.

      • rtxn@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        2 hours ago

        Mozilla can’t be trusted to host the addon, so the author is taking on the responsibility of hosting it himself. How is that his fault and not Mozilla’s?

        Whether Mozilla acted out of malice or incompetence is irrelevant. The report was false and the findings were incorrect, they have to be held responsible either way.

        • PonyOfWar@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 hour ago

          I’d much rather have them be overzealous and mistakenly block an addon for a few hours, than have them be too lax and approve addons actually stealing data.

        • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 hours ago

          Mozilla did apologize, said they were wrong and said they’d correct the issue. The author refused and decided not to put it back to AMO. At that points its on the author that it’s not AMO.

          • rtxn@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            edit-2
            2 hours ago

            Promises from a for-profit company don’t mean shit. How many times have you seen the “we’ve heard you and we’ll do better next time” routine, only for next time to be the same or worse? They’d promise you the pissing Sun if it meant more dollar signs.

            They’re empty words. No company will put out a statement saying “we fucked up, we’re sorry, it’s going to happen again”. Until Mozilla can prove through actions that the issue is fixed, Hill is correct in distrusting them.

            • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              14
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 hour ago

              This is such a storm in a teacup. Someone making the manual checks at Mozilla fucked up and the situation was quickly admitted. I don’t know what else to wish, other than that the failure wouldn’t have happened in the first place. Sucks that it did. Now what sucks is that gorhill doesn’t want to do put it back but it is what it is, luckily it was just the Lite version.

              While I like a juicy conspiracy and fuck the sytsems and all, I don’t think they were lying when they said that they’d put the addon back if gorhill just resubmitted it.

      • MyNameIsRichard@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        2 hours ago

        As the article says, only when it blew up. But you’re right, the author doesn’t look good either.

        More honestly, I enjoy a good conspiracy theory with my coffee.

        • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 hours ago

          As the article says, only when it blew up.

          The article also seems to say that he didn’t bother to disprove the mistaken findings and so Mozilla might’ve not even heard anything back until it blew up. The whole thing seems to have happened pretty quickly.

      • GolfNovemberUniform@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        2 hours ago

        I think they had reasons to act how they acted. They’re probably on a lot of pressure because the whole tech world is fighting ad blocking now.

        • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 hours ago

          There’s always some reason. I’m just worried that something happens with uBO and same happens there