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.
I’m convinced that 80% of all these threads and the responses within them are astroturfing by Google to cause everyone to despair that Mozilla is no better than Google and that there will never be anything that could be developed to compete with Google if Mozilla went under.
There’s just too goddamn many of them and they’re all filled with the same negative comments. It’s just like the “no way bro, I love paying for YouTube why you gotta have everything for free bro?” bullshit from a few months ago.
I also noticed the same trend here and elsewhere as well.
I’ve noticed the same thing you have, but I suspect it has a different explanation. I think it’s more an echo chamber thing. People have said variations of this for a while now in HN comment threads, on reddit and here. And there’s a snowball effect from more people saying it.
But there’s been a throughline of bizarrely apathetic and insubstantial low effort comments. That’s the one thing that has tied them together, which is why I think they are echo-chambery. Just for one example: one guy just never read a 990 before (a standard nonprofit form), and read Mozilla’s and thought it was a conspiracy, and wrote an anti-Mozilla blog post. And then someone linked to that on Lemmy and said it was shady finances. Tons of upvotes.
But I’m convinced that no one reads through these links, including the people posting them. Because it takes two seconds to realize they are nonsense. But it doesn’t stop them from getting upvoted.
So my theory is echo chamber.
I think it’s probably a combination of both. There’s an astroturfing campaign going on somewhere, just not on Lemmy, which is overall too small and insignificant to target. But astroturfing works - it creates the echo chambers you’re talking about, it creates apathy. Most people just read headlines, not even the comments. You read a bad story about Mozilla once a week and you’ll start to internalize it - eventually your opinion of Mozilla will drop, justified or not, to the point where you’re willing to believe even the more heinous theories about it.
So you end up with a lot of people who’ve been fed a lot of misleading half-truths and even some outright lies, who are now getting angry enough about the situation they think is going on to start actively posting anti-Mozilla posts and comments on their own.
We should verify users somehow. No idea how, but I don’t see a future for the internet without it.
How do we prevent that from being abused to ostracize users who people just disagree with? Like how downvotes are used to suppress distenting opinions.
Good faith mods? AI trained on detecting bias terms and concepts? Community notes? No idea, maybe we should try all the above. The internet frequently rewards bad actors, so targeting those rewards should help.
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.
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.
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.
I fear these kind of mistakes will happen much more frequently in the future; thanks to AI tools.
I think this is what’s happening.
If Google loses appeals, Mozilla (and many other browsers that rely heavily on getting their revenue from Google), will have to find new ways to generate revenue. Unfortunately, they seem to be looking for the easiest way out, and that’s selling out their users.
Google’s vassal company
Yep. What is the likelihood of coincidence when 1) Google’s just released manifest V3 2) is cracking down hard on ad blocking 3) is failing hard at being more than a nuisance to ad block users and 4) Mozilla is attacking its most widely used 3rd party feature; the core feature of Google’s scorn.
This is why I don’t donate money to Firefox. Mozilla, the for-profit corporation, should not exist. It’s a parasitic entity that has no value, need, or right to exist. Users should be able to donate to Firefox and vote on specific features, without Mozilla swinging its dick around and ass blasting us all. If donations were transparent and accountable, I’d donate hundreds of dollars a year, for the rest of my life. Because of Mozillas continuous ratfuckery, they get nothing from me. I wonder how true that is for the majority of its user base.
It’s intentional
So much for capitalizing on Chrome’s missteps when it comes to ad blocking I guess
Regarding ad blocking: this isn’t the first time Mozilla has been a little weird recently.
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.
There are actually two very specific events that occurred after 2022 which are crucial to note.
-
In May 2023, Mozilla purchased FakeSpot and permanently retained the policy that allowed them to sell private data to advertisement companies
-
In June 2024, Mozilla purchased Anonym and took it on as an official advertisement subsidiary
The fact that Mozilla hasn’t talked much about ad blockers since then is, I think, significant.
Your own 2023 article doesn’t say anything about policies allowing Mozilla to sell private data, and Mozilla’s own website openly and proudly claims they neither buy nor sell their users’ data.
And Anonym is a company purpose-created to try to transform the advertising industry into a more privacy-respecting industry. Its mission could not align more with Mozilla’s. They in particular developed PPA, the feature Firefox was getting so much bad press about last week - and which ended up being none of the things the dozens of articles posted about it claimed. It is, in fact, a complete non-factor when it comes to privacy risks, and its explicit purpose is to pivot the internet toward a significantly more private ecosystem.
There are lots of people claiming Mozilla is becoming an advertising company and is selling their users out. There’s some misleading evidence that even makes that superficially appear true. But it’s false.
The fact that Mozilla hasn’t talked much about ad blockers since then is, I think, significant.
When have they talked about ad blockers in the past, period? This is just a meaningless scare tactic. I don’t see them talking about arctic drilling either - should I be concerned?
From the same page you got your image from:
Mozilla says FakeSpot sells private data to advertisers in their own privacy policy. In case you were genuinely unaware:
From the same privacy policy you linked:
I don’t personally understand the disconnect between the parts we each posted, but there is a clear disconnect regardless.
And, regardless, this applies to fakespot.com. Not Firefox. Not even slightly Firefox. Firefox unambiguously has nothing to do with selling user data.
Edit: I’ve also gone ahead and sent an email to the address at the bottom of the policy asking for clarification on the issue.
You don’t understand it? It’s pretty clear that in California, they can’t get away with claiming they don’t sell your data, but in Nevada they can. They also clearly seem upset that they must declare that they sell your data, putting “sale” in scare quotes quite often.
Pretending Mozilla FakeSpot and Mozilla Firefox have no common denominator is wrong. They are both operated by Mozilla, and they both allegedly conform to Mozilla’s ethical principles. And if FakeSpot can clearly sell data, then that’s evidence that there is root at the rot of the corporation.
Surely you know better than to take the most charitable interpretation of carefully constructed legal speak.
-
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.
I linked an article that was literally about how Mozilla could, but was not, capitalizing on Google Chrome’s missteps… And specifically laying the justifiable reasons that you alluded to. If somebody hasn’t been following Mozilla’s behavior, it might come in handy.
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.
It’s a bit ironic because Steve Teixeira, who sprearheaded Mozilla Social, got fired after bringing to light the fact that Mozilla wasn’t an inclusive company. I’m a fan of inclusivity, and I agree that accusations of “woke” are meaningless, but I didn’t spot any in that article.
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.
TBH, we’d probably all do well to use the internet a little less
Mozilla says the addon has problems, the developer says it doesn’t. Are there any 3rd parties that can weigh in on this?
Mozilla doesn’t show their work (the reasoning behind the removal) but gorhill does.
Being on the fence is an interesting position to take, but I would be genuinely shocked if one of the most reputable creators of one of the most reputable extensions of all time is lying to its user base about the locations and contents of the files in the open source extension that can be audited by literally anybody just by browsing to that directory on their computer, because in addition to being open source on GitHub, it’s the same source on your PC.
ETA:
Mozilla also accuses uBlock Origin Lite of not having a privacy policy (a detail I removed from my post for brevity’s sake) but gorhill provides a screenshot of it. I guess that could have been faked too. Less difficult to fake: the archives of the privacy policy on Mozilla’s site, which took me too long to track down
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.
For what it’s worth, Firefox is absolutely still the browser that doesn’t treat you like a piggy bank and has options to eliminate ads.
I think because, in this context, it’s because there was an extensive explanation of the problems with Mozilla’s decision on this page.
My own reading of the situation on the developer’s GitHub is unfortunately that the review by Mozilla is indeed completely inaccurate in every way. No way to even read it as a “Each side has their own story” type of thing since they reproduce Mozilla’s emails verbatim. They seem just materially incorrect. The source files referenced by the emails are visible on the same GitHub account, along with their complete histories showing no changes at all - the issues referenced don’t and never did exist.
The only redeeming thing I can find is that the dev (ambiguously) seems to have never replied to the email from Mozilla about the issues, and so Mozilla was never made aware that there was an issue with the review that needed fixing. They seem to have done this because they perceived the process as hostile and not worth engaging with, which… fair, I guess.
I understand where the dev is coming from but I think he still should have just replied to Mozilla. This is clearly a mistake on their part. The dev just seems pissed off and decided to not reply out of emotion. His call I guess but I don’t agree with that approach.
I agree that they should have replied, and that replying probably would have even fixed the mistake, but I also can’t find it in me to fault them in this situation. Getting those emails would have been both frustrating and insulting, and one of their messages on the linked GitHub page goes into the various stresses the situation puts them through.
I don’t agree that there’s enough evidence here to decide Mozilla’s actions were hostile/malicious - maybe if they were given a chance to fix things and still didn’t, but everyone makes mistakes. Incompetent, sure, malicious, not enough evidence.
Yea I don’t think Mozilla did it maliciously. I think either some dumbass analyst fucked up, or they ran it through AI, and the AI is dogshit and fucked up. Those are my guesses.
AI seems like a possibility. I find it slightly easier to believe that someone in management was stupid enough to replace human reviewers with bots than that someone in a position to decide what gets accepted had never heard of UBO and didn’t realize that it’s an important one.
Either way they really ought to explain themselves.
Well Gorhill would need to respond…which he said he won’t do so rip.
Whether or not Mozilla chooses to issue some kind of meaningful statement about what happened beyond the boilerplate “oops, it was an error” is not up to Gorhill.
Who knows? The file that got incorrectly marked as collecting or transmitting data was named “googlesyndication_adsbygoogle.js”. I’m sure that’s a very reasonable guess for what a file with that name would do… in most add-ons. But like, obviously not in this one. My best guess is the reviewers have some type of tool that’s intended to help them find issues, it flagged the referenced files, and the reviewer either couldn’t or didn’t properly verify the files were actually issues.
Yea I think it’s an honest mistake. I don’t see this as “hostile” to Gorhill. I have no idea why he thinks this. It’s really weird.
That’s Gorhill for you, very pissed off, very emotional, not very emotionally bright.
That’s like every developer of these tools lol.
Gorhill does not seem like the sort of person to respond to problems by giving Up.
This is the developer who responded to the creation of Manifest V3 by pioneering a hack-free V3-compliant addon, and ended up making it genuinely compelling.
Edit: bloody hell, I hadn’t looked into Brave that deeply yet, fuck Brendan Eich and fuck Peter Thiel.
Jesus. A day without bad news from Mozilla would be nice. I am beginning to feel a distinct need to switch browsers.
and Brave is currently looking like the best balance between compatibility and privacy. I’ve only been resistant to Brave because it’s based on Chromium andI want to support other browser engines, but the Firefox forks I’ve tried like Waterfox and Pale Moon just aren’t there yet in terms of usability for me (primarily, wide protocol support for web video playback).Anyone got any better suggestions, by any chance?
Brave is currently looking like the best balance between compatibility and privacy.
Brave is the funding vehicle of a far right political activist. Fuck Brendan Eich, fuck Brave.
Let’s also not forget their many privacy violations, including secretly whitelisting Facebook trackers that everyone seems to have forgot about.
IIRC it’s not just Eich but also political agent Peter Thiel, the guy who created a surveillance network so powerful that the NSA relies on him.
IIRC it’s not just Eich but also political agent Peter Thiel
Seems you’re right: https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/new-funds-help-browser-maker-brave-try-ridding-the-web-of-nasty-ads/
I had forgotten why I dropped Brave. This was why.
Brave is also Chromium-based, so switching to that does nothing to promote a web without a Google engine monopoly. Of the three serious engine developers, Google (Chromium), Apple (WebKit), and Mozilla (Gecko), Mozilla is still the least worst option (and that’s saying a lot as this story makes evident once again). FF alternatives like LibreWolf rely in Mozilla Firefox development because they don’t do engine development. I hope the Servo revival turns that into a serious contender.
deleted by creator
That’s why I still use FF. I wish they were run by better people, but it’s still not on par with Google’s shit.
And they still offer useful features/services like email masks, cookie containers, and a VPN (which is rebranded Mullvad). If they were awful bad actors, they would be running their own exit nodes and surreptitiously collecting user data that way.
It’s very privacy focused but if sites break you can turn of fingerprinting protection and thing like that in the settings with one click.
Great browser
LibreWolf still depends on Firefox for continued development. If Mozilla goes under, I don’t see it having all that much of a future.
If Mozilla goes under, the main funders (except google) will start funding the librewolf team instead, and they’ll have more than enough resources to maintain the browser since librewolf devs don’t spend 99% of their funding on other garbage unlike Mozilla. Maybe it is about time we hand over the browser to more capable people.
Librewolf is a tiny niche within a tiny niche. No one at Google has even heard of it, and they’re certainly not going to start throwing money at a tiny obscure browser fork with zero web engine development experience if Firefox dies. Librewolf is a cool project, and I will gladly recommend it, but it dies with Firefox. It only even makes sense to consider the possibility if you have absolutely no self awareness of how small of a community we are at all.
Check out zen browser! Built on Firefox and takes inspiration from arc. Built by a solo dev. I’ve really been liking it. https://zen-browser.app/
Edge with adblock seems fine. No matter what free browser you pick they find ways to profit.
i’m starting to think, that mozilla execs are just goole in disguise.
Sooner or later it’s time to move to the smallweb
Migrating to librewolf right now. Fuck this shit
There will be no Librewolf without Firefox though.
Isn’t it maintained independently?
Every time Mozilla releases a new version of Firefox, LibreWolf applies patches on top of it and releases that. No Firefox, no LibreWolf.
There are hard forks of Firefox that work semi-independently of that project. But they often struggle with feature parity and, worse, security.
Oh damn, that sucks
Source code doesn’t magically disappear when the company who made it goes off the rails. LibreWolf will be just fine.
Who’s going to develop security and feature updates for it? The Librewolf devs certainly won’t have the man power.
In theory, no, but in practice… Every major Google Chromium fork has accepted the removal of Manifest V2 add-ons. It’s much easier to make a fork when 99% of your work is done for you. (That’s not to disparage any fork of any major browser, just a point that development doesn’t come cheap.)
That’s not really what the issue is when people mention LibreWolf depends on Firefox. Its code will always be there, sure - but an abandoned browser is a soon-to-be-dead browser. Something as complex as Firefox needs constant updates to its security and engine, at a minimum, to keep it safe and functional. That’s all work that Mozilla does for LibreWolf, and it’s a significant enough burden that arguably no current fork of Firefox would be able to bear it. It’s apparently a burden even Microsoft wasn’t willing to bear anymore.
It’s just a patch on top of Firefox.
