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.

  • d0ntpan1c@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    46
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    3 months 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.

      • tailiat@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        3 months ago

        If this is due to a single employee making a mistake then I would be inclined to question Mozilla’s policies for removal of popular extensions more than fire the employee.

      • delirious_owl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        3 months ago

        A review and a conversation may be in order, but firing might be harsh considering the circumstances

      • Possibly linux@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        3 months ago

        No, that’s not how that works. What needs to happen is a change in process so that a single employee can’t pull a extension by mistake

      • ChapulinColorado@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        3 months ago

        This could only lead to a hostile work environment. The process and checks in it is what needs to be questioned. If it came out it was an executive bypassing process, then yes. Otherwise the process can be updated and improved. It also needs to be publicly disclosed why it happened given the nature of the claims.