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.
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
Reviving a long-dead thread for a relevant update, in a top-level post because you deleted all of your replies in the thread where it was relevant.
Mozilla did reply to my email asking for clarification on their Fakespot privacy policy, and whether they collect or sell user data, as we were discussing - though that reply took them four weeks. Their response in full:
“”" Hello,
Thank you for contacting Mozilla and for your question. At this time, Fakespot does not sell or share any user data pursuant to any applicable privacy laws. The only data we share outside of Mozilla are generalized aggregated metrics with service providers who make Faksepot run to help us with logging and debugging issues to provide an uninterrupted experience for our customers, and we do not share this data for monetary gain. We are in the process of updating our privacy policy for additional clarity on all the points referenced in your email.
We trust this answers your questions and thank you again for reaching out.
Kind regards, Mozilla “”"
What an email to read. I find it particularly valuable for the things it does not say, but not at all encouraging.
We are in the process of updating our privacy policy for additional clarity on all the points referenced in your email.
They don’t say the TOS is incorrect or too broad. And they don’t say they will remove their promise to sell private data to advertisers.
At this time, Fakespot does not sell or share any user data pursuant to any applicable privacy laws.
At this time? Pursuant to the law? If Mozilla is abiding by law and nothing more, that explains why they are legally forced to admit they sell private data to advertisers.
And the law is the lowest bar imaginable. Google operates under the law. Is Mozilla not better than them?
… service providers who make Faksepot run…
…and they can’t spell their own name right.
God, you’re exhausting. They don’t sell the data. Get over it. The email left no room for ambiguity. You’re reaching so far it’s embarrassing. Are you really that jaded?
Hey, it’s been a few weeks. Guess whether Mozilla has updated their privacy policy yet!
It’s very clear what they say on their corporate website, right?
You posted a privately sent email that contradicts a publicly accessible privacy policy. In the four weeks it took them to send that to you, nothing has been changed, same as the prior year. And they couldn’t even bother to spell their own product name right.
Do you acknowledge that the privacy policy makes it extremely clear that they do sell private data, as outlined in the table that they made for people who struggle to read and mentally parse full paragraphs of text?
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.
that employee needs fired
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.
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
A review and a conversation may be in order, but firing might be harsh considering the circumstances
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.
And I just installed uBOL on a couple of company employee laptops expecting it to be future-proof. Should’ve stuck with uBO.
Mozilla has been doing too many shady things recently.
And the browser experience is getting worse too. So, I’m not sure what our options are for the future. I tolerate the many issues large sites have displaying in Firefox because Firefox is the last holdout against all of this egregious tracking everywhere. But if they’re going to block uBlock, collect a bunch of data by default, and make websites look worse, why am I using it?
I tolerate the many issues large sites have displaying in Firefox because…
Which sites are you having seeing these issues with? I don’t think I’ve seen Firefox have a problem rendering a website any differently than chromium in many years.
My guess is that it was flagged by AI
That explanation does seem plausible, but Mozilla’s emails say the review was performed manually. Either way, the result wasn’t great.
Manually… by an AI.
It wouldn’t surprise me if even if it was a person reviewing it, they used AI to “help”.
Tired of this AI bullshit creeping into and ruining everything. Unfortunately this is probably just the beginning.
when ublock goes, i go :p
Where, Chome land?
librewolf or that other browser that’s in development, i forget the name
Ladybird?
It won’t even reach Alpha until the summer of 2026 at a minimum. I wouldn’t expect it to be a replacement for another few years assuming it doesn’t fade away.
Floorp? Zen?
Are you just making words up?
Feels like it lol
Ladybird I think
uBO is still available:
This issue has been solved, it’s done and it’s gone, there’s no needs to bring it back, the uBlockLite developer is happier to not have to maintain UBOL for Firefox honestly, it’s a waste of time, there’s no reaons to use UBOL when UBO exists.
Except, you know, the reasons stated above. He didn’t just make a lite version for no reason
Seriously. Why is that comment getting upvoted?
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 use to follow a subreddit called /r/degoogle, which was nominally for conversation about how to remove and avoid using google products. … But I ended up leaving because in pretty much every thread there was a whole lot of posts shitting on any and every suggested alternative, mostly for not being hardcore enough. It was as if the only acceptable approach was to never use any electronic device ever again. Firefox of course was constantly under fire for taking money from Google; which apparently made them worse than Google themselves. … Anyway, I strongly suspected that people were deliberately trying to destabilize the group so that it couldn’t grow or become functional. I had no other explanation for how counter-productive the bulk of the conversations were, and it would certainly be an easy and potentially useful group for pro-google people to target.
I’m less convinced that it is happening here though, but I’m certainly more suspicious of it after that experience with /r/degoogle. I reckon probably why we see a lot of any Mozilla stuff here is just that the audience on Lemmy is very interested in what Mozilla is doing - and negative news always gets more traction than positive news.
as a non google astro turfing shill (you’ll have to take my word on this one lmao.
I kinda get it, 80% of mozillas revenue comes from google? If that monopoly case doesn’t kill mozilla, this might.
I could see google trying to pull some shit like this.
Mozilla doesn’t need 80% of its revenue to do a good job of maintaining a browser codebase. So it’s a good thing that that funding could disappear, Mozilla could fold like a lawn chair and the next open-source fork that everyone got behind would pick right up and probably do a better job at the core task than Mozilla is.
This idea that open-source software requires more than a dedicated contributing community is (one of many) memes created by the likes of Google and Microsoft in order to snuff out FOSS competition.
Dude SAME. I find it extremely hard to believe that Google would astroturf Lemmy but it really does feel like all of a sudden in the past ~month a bunch of vague or minor complaints being repeated over and over in every thread.
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.
(Uhhh, AI in charge of censorship? So no one knows how decisions are made? No one can know with AI. That’s just a large mistake. The other ideas have some merit though.)
I also noticed the same trend here and elsewhere as well.
Yep. It’s infuriating. These Firefox communities are trash.
- who would astro turf on Lemmy?
- Google needs Mozilla like Microsoft needed Apple in the 90s
- Astroturfing is trivial, they have a dedicated groups of people doing it and they do it everywhere it’s their job
- Maybe so, but that doesn’t mean they wouldn’t prefer it if Mozilla got behind Manifest V3
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.
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.
You just described why astroturfing and social engineering is so effective. Most people don’t check. So someone can post straight up nonsense and still influence millions of people’s opinions.
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.
Right - I think either way there’s a snowballing effect. Astroturfing, at least as far as I can tell, can be notable for at least trying to make coherent arguments. Echo chambers I would say are characterized by fuzzy thinking, and I’ve seen more of the latter here (especially in this thread).
That said, sometimes the goal of astroturfing isn’t to make a point but to degrade conversations with noise and nonsense, extrapolations and digressions. In light of that, I suppose that too could explain some of what we’re seeing.
no way bro, I love paying for YouTube why you gotta have everything for free bro?
Yeah bro, by are you not paying for freeing everything YouTube? Do you get the picture?
Migrating to librewolf right now. Fuck this shit
There will be no Librewolf without Firefox though.
Isn’t it maintained independently?
It’s just a patch on top of Firefox.
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.
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.)
Who’s going to develop security and feature updates for it? The Librewolf devs certainly won’t have the man power.
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.
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.
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.
The Firefox version of uBO Lite will cease to exist, I am dropping support because of the added burden of dealing with AMO nonsensical and hostile review process. However trivial this may look to an outsider, it’s a burden I don’t want to take on – since the burden is on me, I make the decision whether I can take it on or not, it’s not something up for discussion.
The last sentence…I feel it in my core.
We, the users, rely on the hearts and skills of volunteers who maintain critical code. His comment received 8 thumbs down.
I completely get his thinking here and anyone who wants to deal with mozilla’s fuckery can fork his code and submit it on his behalf.
I imagine part of the reason is that uBOL’s target audience might have less of a problem with not getting it via AMO? After all, it probably wouldn’t even exist if Chrome didn’t pull its MV3 shenanigans.
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.
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.
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.
I just have to stop and note something here. This is an incredibly disorganized way to carry on a conversation. I feel like you didn’t pick up most of what I put down, and instead, you’ve opened two new pandoras boxes, stacking a mess on top of another mess.
So just to recap:
- You posted an opinion article criticizing Mozilla from a place called FOSSpost
- I noted that it was a bizarre article because it was about something not directly tied to Mozilla, and the logic trying to tie Mozilla to it was questionable
- I noted even if you entertain this bizarre logic (which you shouldn’t!) Mozilla has criticized V3 in the past
- I noted that given that they have criticized it in the past, the only way this already bizarre logic would make sense was if remaining issue is the timing, but even so that’s entertaining the bizarre assumptions of the article
Phew. So now you’re talking about timing.
And just to explain why this is so chaotic: (1) I feel like the essence of the point isn’t about the timeline of Mozilla acquisitons (not mentioned by your first article) but about the article’s questionable logic of interpreting silences to mean something, which hinges on all kinds of subjective choices about how you interpret context (2) the point you seem to be making now, is about a shift in Mozilla’s motivations and identity, which is a very nebulous and subjective thing, and hardly even the kind of thing you can establish with an article or two (3) you don’t seem to be up to the task of attempting a nuanced reconciliation between the table you posted and the other privacy policy info on the same page that the other user brought up (4) the article you posted together with the table doesn’t contain the table or anything affirming your description (I found the table via google but it’s a disorienting way to organize the information) (5) even if your interpretation was reliable it wouldn’t mean silence during a particular news cycle was proof of anything (6) none of these things establish a motivation for sympathetic behaviors toward Google (in fact it would seem to be the opposite) (7) there’s not any reason to think these are the best pieces of context to be brought to bear on this question, (what about, for instance, the fact that Mozilla has their own modded version of V3 that restores add blocking? That seems at least as relevant to gauging their true intentions as anything you have posted, given that the first article was about V3).
Even if you were 100% right, there has to be a way to make this argument that doesn’t require everyone reading it to reach for the dramamine. It’s a disorganized mess.
I’m sorry you don’t follow the logic, but to simplify it for you, I’ll break it down: ever since Mozilla picked up an ad subsidiary, they became an ad company. Kind of like how Google is an ad company even though they only have an ad subsidiary too.
And because Mozilla is an ad company, we need to watch how they describe advertisements to us, because they have a huge conflict of interest. It would be bizarre, as you say, to act otherwise.
Do you still follow, or would it be more helpful if I made a post about it on this community to remind people how Mozilla has become an ad company over the past year?
Regardless, that is all I was trying to do: to get people to think a little bit. Stay curious!
I’m sorry, but you’re not at all taking responsibility for your mess, and trying to re-frame this as you being simply too smart for this world is kind of a deadbeat move.
If you think nobody else knew that Mozilla and Google get revenue from ads, like it’s something you need to “help” everyone understand, you’re underestimating the knowledge of people you are communicating with and overestimating yours.
How does any of this connect to the FOSSpost article you shared from like 2 comments ago? The argument from FOSSpost was originally “Mozilla has been silent”, but then it changed to “Oh, well actually Mozilla did criticize it, but since then they’ve changed, so they need to criticize them again”.
Speculating on the meaning of a “silence” and treating it like proof of something is already a terrible way to reason for reasons that seem so obvious to me I would never expect to have to explain it in a serious conversation. There are better ways to gauge their commitments than that, there are better pieces of evidence to set the context, the evidence you are putting forward is mixed rather than decisive… and these are all the things I already said the last time around.
Yet here you are, offering to “help” me follow as if this lowly train wreck was a brilliant point that’s being misunderstood out of a deficit of curiosity.
Okay, we are making some progress. You and I both agree that Mozilla has changed into an advertisement company. Can we both also agree that this means they have a conflict of interest with advertisements now?
Do you also understand that it’s important to reassess someone’s opinion on something after the conflict of interest arises? For example, if a politician got a huge cash donation from a lobbying interest, would you actually be saying “well, the politician criticized the lobby once” and absolutely freak out if anybody said things needed to be reevaluated?
If you’re not responding in bad faith and genuinely couldn’t follow, I’ll simplify matters:
I found it interesting that Mozilla hasn’t had much to say about ad blockers either this year, or last year. Things have changed considerably at Mozilla over the last couple of years. General consensus appears to be that those things are worse.
I never said Mozilla’s silence was proof of anything, I just find it curious when you add it to everything else Mozilla has become. Because they are now an ad company, we must place extra scrutiny on how they discuss advertisements.
I’m sorry if you got confused, but to simplify matters for you: I find it interesting that Mozilla hasn’t had much to say about ad blockers either this year, or last year. Things have changed considerably at Mozilla over the last couple of years. General consensus appears to be that those things are worse.
I never said Mozilla’s silence was proof of anything, I just find it curious when you add it to everything else Mozilla has become. Because they are now an ad company, we must place extra scrutiny on how they discuss advertisements.
Oh, you’re one of those people who can’t accept responsibility for anything. Got it.
“Oh, I’m sorry that YOU had a problem, but…”
It’s fair to say that if you can’t read past the first doesn’t words and respond to them, you do have a problem.
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?
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.
Sooner or later it’s time to move to the smallweb
i’m starting to think, that mozilla execs are just goole in disguise.
