uBlock Origin Lite Maker Ends Firefox Store Support, Slams Mozilla For Hostile Reviews

The Firefox extension for the uBlock Origin Lite content blocker is no longer available. According to Neowin, "Raymond Hill, the maker of the extension, pulled support and moved uBlock Origin Lite to self-hosting after multiple encounters with a 'nonsensical and hostile' review process from the store review team." From the report: It all started in early September when Mozilla flagged every version of the uBlock Origin Lite extension as violating its policies. Reviewers then claimed the extension apparently collected user data and contained "minified, concatenated or otherwise machine-generated code." The developer seemingly debunked those allegations, saying that "it takes only a few seconds for anyone who has even basic understanding of JavaScript to see the raised issues make no sense." Raymond Hill decided to drop the extension from the store and move it to a self-hosted version. This means that those who want to continue using uBlock Origin Lite on Firefox should download the latest version from GitHub (it can auto-update itself).

The last message from the developer in a now-closed GitHub issue shows an email from Mozilla admitting its fault and apologizing for the mistake. However, Raymond still pulled the extension from the Mozilla Add-ons Store, which means you can no longer find it on addons.mozilla.org. It is worth noting that the original uBlock Origin for Firefox is still available and supported.

A New Pro-Strat?

[Kunedog]

The last message from the developer in a now-closed GitHub issue shows an email from Mozilla admitting its fault and apologizing for the mistake. However, Raymond still pulled the extension from the Mozilla Add-ons Store, which means you can no longer find it on addons.mozilla.org.

Eat paste, Evacuate into pants, Extinguish.

He's self-hosting, but far fewer will install or even see this adblocker in the future.

Re:A New Pro-Strat?

[SlayerOfKings]

Honestly I don't even understand why it was available, because the only real use case for UBO Lite is on Chromium based browsers, as UBO lite is the nerfed Manifest V3 version. If you're running Firefox, use the original, unnerfed version which IS still available in the store.

Re:

[Dwedit]

It uses less resources, and might be suitable for potato-level PCs or phones.

Re:

[sound+vision]

Do extensions, the same extensions, run on Android and Windows versions now? I don't think that was the case last I checked (around 6 years ago).

Re: A New Pro-Strat?

[SneedFeedAndSeed]

Most of them

Re: A New Pro-Strat?

[cfalcon]

His main addon is still there.
The "lite" version was created to work with Chrome, and ported to Firefox.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-... [mozilla.org]

Ublock Origin (the best adblock) is still right there.

Note that the bogus crap about the Lite version could just as easily apply to the full version, because many of the files that Firefox made false claims about are in both versions.

Follow the money

[Malay2bowman]

Might want to investigate if those "reviewers" are getting paid off by ad and data mining companies.

Re:

[billyswong]

It is now a common practice for all the big corp websites to review or to moderate content anonymously, then demand the content creators their real identity. Imagine a nation where every commoners must go out with their name plate on their chest, while all the police and judges are masked and you are not allowed to know who arrest you and who imprison you. Our digital world are falling into such dystopia.

Re:

[sound+vision]

Isn't Google still the biggest funder of Firefox? I heard that was going away, but maybe the threat of them going away is what gives them more leverage now. "Do this and we'll continue providing some funds, even when the courts cancel our search deal."

Uhm...

[Sleeping Kirby]

1) I don't see an apology email from Mozilla, as the story claims, in the github issue
2) All the requirements that he's saying is nonsensical and absurd were put into place after several add-ons were found to use minified/compiled code to do malicious things.
3) The plugin's privacy statement says: "Doesn't embed any analytics or telemetry hooks in its code", but, in that very issue, one of the files is named ./web_accessible_resources/google-analytics_analytics.js
4) None of these files are commented or documented.
5) The mozilla add-ons team usually requires explanation for justification not just "where it is".
6) He complains "where is the minification of these codes"? When the statement from mozilla was "Your add-on contains minified, concatenated or otherwise machine-generated code" It's not specifically minification.

Something's not meshing with the author's story. I'm not saying the mozilla team is faultless, they do get stuff wrong sometimes, but all these reasons from Mozilla were justified.

Re:

[d0ran$]

Here is the apology email [github.com]

Re:Uhm...

[rta]

1) I don't see an apology email from Mozilla, as the story claims, in the github issue

you have to click to expand the quote on github but it says that it is from Sept 27th with the meat of it:

After re-reviewing your extension, we have determined that the previous decision was incorrect and based on that determination, we have restored your add-on.

We apologize for the mistake and encourage you to reach out to us in the future whenever you have questions or concerns about a review so that we can correct mistakes and resolve any issues quickly. ...

(see: https://github.com/uBlockOrigi... [github.com] )