• kbal@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    167
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 month ago

    The discourse about Mozilla is ridiculous, here and most everywhere. You’ve got people taking every perceived opportunity to attack them for things they do, things they didn’t do, and things it’s imagined they might’ve done. And then another crowd of equally determined people doggedly defending them for every idiotic blunder they make, such as this one.

    Meanwhile Mozilla itself has nothing substantial to say. This is not the first time a prominent extension has mysteriously gone missing from amo with Mozilla telling us nothing about its role in the incident. @mozilla@mozilla.social needs to be in the discussion giving us a real explanation of what happened, why they got it wrong, and what they’re doing to improve things.

    • setVeryLoud(true);@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      55
      ·
      1 month ago

      Correct, this two-sided discourse is due to a massive lack of communication on Mozilla’s part, leaving room for speculation.

      • abbenm@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        1 month ago

        The best I can think of is that the explainer language used to justify the extension’s removal was just boilerplate language that got copy+pasted here because someone clicked the wrong button. But even that makes a mockery of the review process.

        I think “oops clicked wrong button” would be slightly more defensible, but not by much. If they truly rejected the extension for content in it that it does not have, it’s hard to see how a human could make that mistake even accidentally. But maybe there’s something I’m missing.

      • blurg@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        30 days ago

        True in a way. However, there is a rather large collection of speculation on the Internet that is quite an undertaking to correct. And a large population of people and bots willing to speculate. Also, having once been speculated, each speculation takes on a life of its own. If it gets much more substantial, forget Skynet, we’re busy creating Specunet and its sidekick Confusionet – an insidious duo.

    • jol@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      33
      ·
      30 days ago

      We have collectively agreed that Mozilla is a) not reviewing extentions enough, and b) reviewing too much.

  • slazer2au@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    95
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    Oh so ublock origin lite. A manifest V3 compatible adblocker for chromium browsers.
    The original ublock origin is unaffected

    • abbenm@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 month ago

      Firefox will be adopting Manifest V3, but a modded version that enables ad blocking.

      • newbeni@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        29 days ago

        Wait, I’m confused. How are Mozilla and Firefox different? I thought what ever Mozilla decides goes…granted, I’m out of the loop.

        • abbenm@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          27 days ago

          I was using them interchangeably. I guess one is understood to be kind of a general foundation or overall company, whereas Firefox is just the browser itself

    • signofzeta
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      29 days ago

      Just curious, how does uBlock Origin Lite compare to regular uBlock Origin? I’ve heard from the Chrome crowd that it’s not as good as blocking ads due to the V3 limitations, but how’s the speed? I might consider it for lower-end hardware if it’s not too compromised.

  • vintageballs@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    Deutsch
    arrow-up
    71
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 month 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.

    • Virkkunen@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      77
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      It was a manual review conducted by an actual person that in the end admitted they were wrong

        • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          30 days ago

          Agreed. Especially considering uBlock origin is pretty much the main reason to use FF at all. They shouldn’t be delegating reviews of it to someone who would fuck up this badly.

          Assuming this wasn’t a “test the waters” kind of thing to determine just how much they were reliant on ublock.

          I’ve been using the main FF build for a while now but I’m wondering if I should start looking at the various fork options.

        • Obinice@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          Are you like, those old multi colour swirly rubber balls we used to get out of 20p machines as kids? Those were ill!

      • abbenm@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        It was a manual review conducted by an actual person that in the end admitted they were wrong

        Good to know! I wasn’t sure if it was automated or not. That’s rough.

        • eRac@lemmings.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          30 days ago

          The dev stated that it mostly exists for more performance-limited applications like mobile.

      • Obinice@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        I thought that was the shit Chrome was doing to block adblockers and antimalware plugins, if Firefox is doing the same thing what browser do we use now? :-(

        I don’t care about all the browser wars stuff, I lost interest when it was Netscape Vs IE, I just want a browser that I can configure fully myself and have it be as safe and secure as one can make it, within reason.

        • pmk@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 month ago

          If we want to do something radically different, there’s always gopher and gemini browsers.

        • abbenm@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          I thought that was the shit Chrome was doing to block adblockers and antimalware plugins, if Firefox is doing the same thing what browser do we use now? :-(

          They’re doing a modified version of V3 that they changed to restore ad-blocking functionality.

    • Aatube@kbin.melroy.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      Theoretically, the browser executes the Mv3 blocking rules, so it could be optimized and more efficient than js ever could.

  • Lets_Eat_Grandma@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    60
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    30 days ago

    Mozilla isn’t google. They took it back and encouraged the guy to reach out in the future if any issues arise.

    BFD, it’s not like they banned his account, just one gimped extension that doesn’t do the whole ad blocking experience and even then only because he didn’t do anything to try and reverse it. Then after it’s restored he throws his tantrum and removes it.

    With all the extensions out there false positive detections of malicious apps are going to happen. Nobody has unlimited resources to hire boatloads of devs to review every single line of code of every extension for every update done. That’s an insane expectation.

      • Semperverus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        43
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        29 days ago

        There is fairly substantial rumor that there may be a smear campaign against firefox lately because they are still supporting manifest v2, which our owning class does not care for.

        Mozilla has made their fair share of stupid decisions lately, but they are still leagues ahead of Google, Amazon, and the other FAANG-type companies in ethics and trustworthiness. Definitely something to keep a pulse on, but nothing to throw the baby out with the bathwater over. And if it really bothers you, use LibreWolf/Fennec.

  • IHave69XiBucks
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    53
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    That poor dev is just getting so much shit thrown their way constantly having a short temper about it makes sense. They are fighting against an entire industry to make the internet usable for people. I hope everyone who has the means to donates to support the developer

    Edit: donate to block list maintainers thanks to lemmyvore below for the correction

    • lemmyvore@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      40
      ·
      1 month ago

      The dev has not made available any means to donate to him directly. He asks that people donate to the maintainers of the block lists instead.

  • data1701d (He/Him)@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    43
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    30 days ago

    I almost had a panic attack until I realized this was for UBlock Origin Lite rather than the normal, manifest v2 version. Still mad at Mozilla,though.

  • UnfortunateShort@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    30 days ago

    This is more likely someone fucking up and not having a second pair of eyes look at the presumed problem than anything else.

  • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    39
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    There’s a dozen Firefox extensions that really matter, at any given time. Mozilla has never appeared to give a particular shit about any of them. Paying special attention based on popularity wouldn’t be ideal, but for fuck’s sake, their passive-aggressive treatment keeps burning out the developers who fuel their ecosystem, and it would take vanishingly little effort to shield their keystone plugins.

    If their active neglect had ruined both uBlock and DownThemAll - I’m not sure I’d be using Firefox anymore, and I’ve been using Firefox since before it was called Firefox. Why the fuck would anyone normal even consider it?

    • BigDanishGuy@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 month ago

      DownThemAll is one of those extensions which get installed immediately for me. If I didn’t have DownThemAll and uBlock origin, I’d might as well just use edge smh

      • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        edit-2
        30 days ago

        And the author spent a year hassling Mozilla about how killing XUL plugins would make his wildly popular plugin nearly impossible. Did they move one iota to help that? Nope. Did they adopt DTA functionality natively, like they’d absorbed Pocket? Did they fuck. Their mantra for two straight decades has been “just rewrite!” and they cannot imagine why they kept hemorrhaging devs and plugins and users once Chrome slimed its way into everyone’s options.

  • Findmysec@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    43
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    30 days ago

    This one is completely on Mozilla. TBH I’m not very happy with their governance either. Stop spending money on bullshit and start working on the damn browser. Stop hassling devs like him who have had an immense contribution to not only open source, but your fucking browser’s usage metrics.

    I wish another browser standard comes up and we can say goodbye to this google-infested shit-bucket that is mozilla.

    • Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      30 days ago

      Ok, but “google-infested shit-buckets” are also Chrome and all the chromium poop cups, even more so one might say.

      Not disagreeing, especially with the sad sentiment of what’s happening at Mozilla, just trying to keep in mind the other 95% of the browser picture.

      • Findmysec@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        30 days ago

        Which is why I’d like to see a third player. I don’t use Chrome except for ungoogled chromium when the other browsers are tied up

        • Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          30 days ago

          Yes, as said, Im agreeing, I was just pointing out the sad reality of what the majority is doing (and like it or not, that affects us all).
          I’d love a legit third choice (again)!

      • Semperverus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        29 days ago

        Thats kind of like saying Valve and Steam are not the same thing. Like, yea, Valve owns and develops Steam, but most people will understand someone who calls the company “Steam” (even if they sound a bit daft in doing so).

      • Findmysec@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        29 days ago

        I didn’t say they were. For the most part, if a third option really comes up, I’m OK with Mozilla not existing at all.

  • brianary@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    30 days ago

    As I’ve said elsewhere: I wonder what controls Mozilla has in place to prevent gradual takeover of their board by those with an interest in removing Firefox as a competitor. We’ve watched the sleeper cell in the Supreme Court transform that body into an illegitimate partisan puppet. Mozilla’s actions over the last few years would make much more sense if it were being manipulated into self destruction.

  • boredsquirrel@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    30 days ago

    I dont get why you would run that on Firefox. Users will find the corrent one, all good.

    Btw is the uBlock without Origin addon still there?

  • fish@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    29 days ago

    That’s a real bummer about Mozilla and uBlock Origin clashing. It’s weird 'cause their values seem pretty aligned with privacy and user control. Hopefully they can smooth things out soon—users like us just want our browsing to be smooth and ad-free!

    • beefbot@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      28 days ago

      “Seem” : had been, were previously. Now, Mozilla’s values seem no longer reliably aligned with privacy and user control

  • jol@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    30 days ago

    Gorhill is free to do whatever he wants, of course, I thank him for all the good work. But his reaction is honestly childish and dangerous for the community. Once again his decision to pull the plug opens the door to abusers. Now when you go to the addons page and search for uBlock, you may find illegitimate extensions pretending to be uBlock which are trying to collect your data or worse. Less tech say people don’t know any better.

  • MyNameIsRichard@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    64
    ·
    1 month ago

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

    • abbenm@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

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

      I mean I’m of two minds here. One, there’s an epidemic of intellectually lazy, kneejerk Mozilla hate and it’s time to turn the tide on that.

      But on the other hand, even as a Mozilla fanboy I can see how this is a really bad look, and really indefensible. I think it’s more of a huge error of judgment, and if there are other huge errors, I can begin to see a problem, but I think they have too much of a positive track record in their history to just go reaching for the tinfoil hats so quickly.