this post was submitted on 30 Sep 2024
444 points (94.0% liked)

Firefox

17937 readers
37 users here now

A place to discuss the news and latest developments on the open-source browser Firefox

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 22 points 1 month ago (4 children)

My guess is that it was flagged by AI

[–] LWD@lemm.ee 9 points 1 month ago (2 children)

That explanation does seem plausible, but Mozilla's emails say the review was performed manually. Either way, the result wasn't great.

[–] Anticorp@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] yahiroz@lemm.ee 2 points 1 month ago

It wouldn't surprise me if even if it was a person reviewing it, they used AI to "help".

load more comments (1 replies)