Mozilla recently removed every version of uBlock Origin Lite from their add-on store except for the oldest version.

Mozilla says a manual review flagged these issues:

Consent, specifically Nonexistent: For add-ons that collect or transmit user data, the user must be informed…

Your add-on contains minified, concatenated or otherwise machine-generated code. You need to provide the original sources…

uBlock Origin’s developer gorhill refutes this with linked evidence.

Contrary to what these emails suggest, the source code files highlighted in the email:

  • Have nothing to do with data collection, there is no such thing anywhere in uBOL
  • There is no minified code in uBOL, and certainly none in the supposed faulty files

Even for people who did not prefer this add-on, the removal could have a chilling effect on uBlock Origin itself.

Incidentally, all the files reported as having issues are exactly the same files being used in uBO for years, and have been used in uBOL as well for over a year with no modification. Given this, it’s worrisome what could happen to uBO in the future.

And gorhill notes uBO Lite had a purpose on Firefox, especially on mobile devices:

[T]here were people who preferred the Lite approach of uBOL, which was designed from the ground up to be an efficient suspendable extension, thus a good match for Firefox for Android.

New releases of uBO Lite do not have a Firefox extension; the last version of this coincides with gorhill’s message. The Firefox addon page for uBO Lite is also gone.

  • aleats ( aleats@lemmy.blahaj.zone ) English
    181·
    2 years ago

    Sometimes you really have to stop and ask yourself what the fuck is going on at Mozilla’s HQ. It’s insane how they manage to shoot themselves in the foot at least once a week.

  • Vincent ( Vincent@feddit.nl ) 
    107·
    2 years ago

    Appears to be a mistake, but needs gorhill to appeal to make the reviewer aware of the mistake and to be able to fix it, which he doesn’t feel like doing because he thinks it’s unlikely to have been a mistake.

    Update: now reversed, but gorhill removed it himself just to not have to deal with the review process and the possibility of human error anymore.

    • ReversalHatchery ( ReversalHatchery@beehaw.org ) English
      26·
      2 years ago

      It’s interesting to see gorhill’s reaction. I understand that he’s fed up with all of this bullshit around both the advertising industry and mozilla’s internal happenings, but maybe this was not a logical decision. I hope he is well, or that he gets the help he needs.

      • CosmicTurtle0 [he/him] ( CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com ) English
        35·
        2 years ago

        The Firefox version of uBO Lite will cease to exist, I am dropping support because of the added burden of dealing with AMO nonsensical and hostile review process. However trivial this may look to an outsider, it’s a burden I don’t want to take on – since the burden is on me, I make the decision whether I can take it on or not, it’s not something up for discussion.

        The last sentence…I feel it in my core.

        We, the users, rely on the hearts and skills of volunteers who maintain critical code. His comment received 8 thumbs down.

        I completely get his thinking here and anyone who wants to deal with mozilla’s fuckery can fork his code and submit it on his behalf.

      • Vincent ( Vincent@feddit.nl ) 
        3·
        2 years ago

        I imagine part of the reason is that uBOL’s target audience might have less of a problem with not getting it via AMO? After all, it probably wouldn’t even exist if Chrome didn’t pull its MV3 shenanigans.

        • ReversalHatchery ( ReversalHatchery@beehaw.org ) English
          1·
          2 years ago

          yeah, on Firefox it’s not really useful, other than for very underpowered mobile devices. it was only made because of chrome.

          because of the lack of capabilities I think regular uBO with only the default lists would be the same as uBOL performance wise, and more effectivein cleaning up websites in all aspects

  • Asafum ( Asafum@feddit.nl ) 
    39·
    2 years ago

    Very cool stuff. Between this and fucking Microsuck Recall it looks like I won’t be using the Internet at all in the near future…

    Very fun.

    Fucking Corpo pricks.

      • leopold ( leopold@lemmy.kde.social ) 
        25·
        2 years ago

        The article you linked makes a big deal about literally nothing. We’ve known Chrome was going to drop MV2 for years. We also know Firefox won’t. There is nothing more they have to do or say about this situation. It doesn’t affect Firefox whatsoever.

        “Suspiciously silent” is such a bullshit nothing accusation to make. It is so obviously trying to capitalize on how many users have been (justifiably) turning on Mozilla as of late.

          • kbal ( kbal@fedia.io ) 
            11·
            2 years ago

            It’s not “handy.” It’s badly-written arrant clickbaity tendentious anti-Firefox garbage. Mozilla does plenty of stupid things. I do not understand this desire some people have to invent more. It appears that many of them have simply decided based on Mozilla’s now-discontinued efforts to improve social media that Mozilla is too “woke” and therefore the enemy, or something like that.

      • abbenm ( abbenm@lemmy.ml ) 
        10·
        2 years ago

        As the other commenter noted, this is kind of a nonsensical article. I am not by any means a fan of Mozilla’s decision on Ublock, it seems egregious and indefensible. But the convoluted logic of making Manifest V3 about Mozilla is completely emptyhanded, and there’s no rhyme, reason, logic, or precedent suggesting we should make anything of their absence of a statement.

        Also, this is especially nuts because Mozilla HAS in fact criticized Manifest V3! They just happened not to have done so within a particular randomly selected window of time.

          • abbenm ( abbenm@lemmy.ml ) 
            5·
            2 years ago

            I just have to stop and note something here. This is an incredibly disorganized way to carry on a conversation. I feel like you didn’t pick up most of what I put down, and instead, you’ve opened two new pandoras boxes, stacking a mess on top of another mess.

            So just to recap:

            • You posted an opinion article criticizing Mozilla from a place called FOSSpost
            • I noted that it was a bizarre article because it was about something not directly tied to Mozilla, and the logic trying to tie Mozilla to it was questionable
            • I noted even if you entertain this bizarre logic (which you shouldn’t!) Mozilla has criticized V3 in the past
            • I noted that given that they have criticized it in the past, the only way this already bizarre logic would make sense was if remaining issue is the timing, but even so that’s entertaining the bizarre assumptions of the article

            Phew. So now you’re talking about timing.

            I wanted to do my best to take the feeling of disorientation at the strangeness of your comment and turn it into words, so here goes: (1) I feel like the essence of the point isn’t about the timeline of Mozilla acquisitons (not mentioned by your first article) but about the article’s questionable logic of interpreting silences to mean something, which hinges on all kinds of subjective choices about how you interpret context (2) the point you seem to be making now, is about a shift in Mozilla’s motivations and identity, which is a very nebulous and subjective thing, and hardly even the kind of thing you can establish with an article or two (3) you don’t seem to be up to the task of attempting a nuanced reconciliation between the table you posted and the other privacy policy info on the same page that the other user brought up (4) the article you posted together with the table doesn’t contain the table or anything affirming your description (I found the table via google but it’s a disorienting way to organize the information) (5) even if your interpretation was reliable it wouldn’t mean silence during a particular news cycle was proof of anything (6) none of these things establish a motivation for sympathetic behaviors toward Google (in fact it would seem to be the opposite) (7) there’s not any reason to think these are the best pieces of context to be brought to bear on this question, (what about, for instance, the fact that Mozilla has their own modded version of V3 that restores add blocking? That seems at least as relevant to gauging their true intentions as anything you have posted, given that the first article was about V3).

            Even if you were 100% right, there has to be a way to make this argument that doesn’t require everyone reading it to reach for the dramamine. It’s a disorganized mess.

              • abbenm ( abbenm@lemmy.ml ) 
                1·
                2 years ago

                I’m sorry, but you’re not at all taking responsibility for your mess, and trying to re-frame this as you being simply too smart for this world is kind of a deadbeat move.

                If you think nobody else knew that Mozilla and Google get revenue from ads, like it’s something you need to “help” everyone understand, you’re underestimating the knowledge of people you are communicating with and overestimating yours.

                How does any of this connect to the FOSSpost article you shared from like 2 comments ago? The argument from FOSSpost was originally “Mozilla has been silent”, but then it changed to “Oh, well actually Mozilla did criticize it, but since then they’ve changed, so they need to criticize them again”.

                Speculating on the meaning of a “silence” and treating it like proof of something is already a terrible way to reason for reasons that seem so obvious to me I would never expect to have to explain it in a serious conversation. There are better ways to gauge their commitments than that, there are better pieces of evidence to set the context, the evidence you are putting forward is mixed rather than decisive… and these are all the things I already said the last time around.

                Yet here you are, offering to “help” me follow as if this lowly train wreck was a brilliant point that’s being misunderstood out of a deficit of curiosity.

  • d0ntpan1c ( d0ntpan1c@lemmy.blahaj.zone ) 
    28·
    2 years ago

    Y’all realize a random employee performing the add-on store review process isn’t representing Mozilla’s or the Firefox teams entire position yeah? This kind of stuff happens all the time with all stores that have review processes.

    Firefox Addons store prob needs to improve its process, gorhill is justified in being mad, and I understand if he needs a punching bag between this and google, but, as someone who also develops extensions… These things happen. It’s just a part of building browser extensions.

  • jangdonggun ( jangdonggun@lemmy.ml ) 
    22·
    2 years ago

    This issue has been solved, it’s done and it’s gone, there’s no needs to bring it back, the uBlockLite developer is happier to not have to maintain UBOL for Firefox honestly, it’s a waste of time, there’s no reaons to use UBOL when UBO exists.

      • AngryishHumanoid ( AngryishHumanoid@reddthat.com ) 
        12·
        2 years ago

        I’m not sure why you think “being on the fence is an interesting position to take”, I’m glad there are people out there who have the skills to look at the code and see if it’s doing what people claim it is doing or not, I am not one of them. I just want a browser that doesn’t treat me like a piggy bank and less ads. I don’t know the developers reputation and simply asked for more knowledgeable people to chime in, sorry if that’s a problem for you.

        • abbenm ( abbenm@lemmy.ml ) 
          4·
          2 years ago

          I think because, in this context, it’s because there was an extensive explanation of the problems with Mozilla’s decision on this page.