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.

  • ReversalHatchery@beehaw.orgEnglish
    26·
    1 month ago

    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.

    • CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
      35·
      1 month ago

      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.

    • Vincent@feddit.nl
      2·
      1 month ago

      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.

      • ReversalHatchery@beehaw.orgEnglish
        1·
        28 days ago

        yeah, on Firefox it’s not really useful, other than for very underpowered mobile devices. it was only made because of chrome.

        because of the lack of capabilities I think regular uBO with only the default lists would be the same as uBOL performance wise, and more effectivein cleaning up websites in all aspects