uBlock Origin Lite maker ends Firefox support due to “hostile” dispute with Mozilla

[Catweazle]

Raymond Hill, creator of the popular ad blocker uBlock Origin, recently received two emails from Mozilla regarding his Firefox add-on uBlock Origin Lite. This version is designed to be compatible with Manifest V3, a specification that will replace Manifest V2 in Chromium-based browsers. The emails from Mozilla highlighted several violations, including the lack of user consent for data collection, the presence of minified or machine-generated code, and the absence of a privacy policy.

In response, Hill refuted these claims, asserting that uBlock Origin Lite does not collect any data, contains no minified code in the cited files, and includes a privacy policy link on its add-on page. Despite his rebuttal, Mozilla has disabled the extension on the Firefox Add-ons Store. Frustrated by what he describes as a “nonsensical and hostile” decision, Hill announced he will discontinue the Firefox version of uBlock Origin Lite due to the “added burden of dealing with AMO nonsensical and hostile review process”.

Source

[stardepp]

Yes, Mozilla has made several gross mistakes and is losing more and more users of the Firefox browser.

Only in Germany does Firefox still have a large fan base. Worldwide, Firefox only reaches 6.64 % (data from July 2024, source: https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/157944/umfrage/marktanteile-der-browser-bei-der-internetnutzung-weltweit-seit-2009/

[mib2berlin]

@Catweazle
Hello, I read that he is no longer developing uBlock for Chrome, but I can't find the source anymore.

[DoctorG]

Mozilla is going to be such a ass.....?
But that is a real problem for most unpaid open-source developers, they are not good treated by companies, and Mozilla is a company regardless of its state as a "foundation".

[Catweazle]

@mib2berlin, I know, but you can use still uBO Mv2, which remains in the store until the out next year (see related news in the original article)

[mib2berlin]

@Catweazle
I use uBo light for some month already because the internal is recognized on some pages.
I never used the extra features of uBlock so Light does all I need.

Cheers, mib

[Catweazle]

Comment of Gorehill in GitHub

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 burden is that even as a self-hosted extension, it fails to pass review at submission time, which leads to having to wait an arbitrary amount of time (time is an important factor when all the filtering rules are packaged into the extension), and once I finally receive a notification that the review cleared, I have to manually download the extension's file, rename it, then upload it to GitHub, then manually patch the update_url to point to the new version. It took 5 days after I submitted version 2024.9.12.1004 to finally be notified that the version was approved for self-hosting. As of writing, version 2024.9.22.986 has still not been approved.

However often keep looking into all this, every time I can only conclude the feedback from Mozilla Add-ons Team to have been nonsensical and hostile, and as a matter of principle I won't partake into this nonsensical and hostile review process.

It takes only a few seconds to see how this is nonsensical -- keep in mind that this "was manually reviewed by the Mozilla Add-ons team":

"For add-ons that collect or transmit user data, the user must be informed and provided with a clear and easy way to control this data collection"

Where is the "data collection" in this file?

https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/blob/uBOLite_2024.9.1.1266/firefox/web_accessible_resources/googlesyndication_adsbygoogle.js

"Your add-on contains minified, concatenated or otherwise machine-generated code"

Where is the "minification" in these files?

https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/blob/uBOLite_2024.9.1.1266/firefox/web_accessible_resources/fingerprint2.js

https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/blob/uBOLite_2024.9.1.1266/firefox/web_accessible_resources/google-analytics_analytics.js

https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/blob/uBOLite_2024.9.1.1266/firefox/web_accessible_resources/google-analytics_ga.js

https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/blob/uBOLite_2024.9.1.1266/firefox/web_accessible_resources/googletagservices_gpt.js

"Also, if your add-on is listed on addons.mozilla.org, the listing needs to include a privacy policy, and a summary of the data collection should be mentioned in the add-on description."

Right, it's always been there since the first version published on AMO more than a year ago

https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/350bc17c-53e2-401a-91a0-2a321337c49e

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 given it uses the same exact files.

The steps taken by Mozilla Add-ons Team as a result of the (nonsensical) "issues" was to disable all versions of uBOL except for the oldest version, first published on AMO on August 2023. That oldest version is also reported as having the same "issues" and was set to be disabled by Mozilla Add-ons Team unless the "issues" were addressed ("Based on that finding, those versions of your Extension will be disabled on https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/ublock-origin-lite/ in 14 day(s)."). I disabled this version myself to prevent new users from ending up with a severely outdated version of the extension to avoid a subpar first experience of uBOL.

So essentially, it was deemed that all versions of uBOL were having "issues", but instead of disabling all of them except the most recent one, they disabled all of them except the oldest one. This is hostile considering that whoever installed uBOL at that point would be installing a version of uBOL with severely outdated filter lists, along with an outdated codebase (many issues were fixed in the codebase since August 2023).

I am unable to attribute good faith to both the nonsensical review feedback and the steps taken as a result of this nonsensical review feedback, and I am unable to take on the added burden of having to deal with nonsense.

This is unfortunate because despite uBOL being more limited than uBO, there 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.

From this point on, there will no longer be a package published in the release section for Firefox, except for the latest one, uBOLite_2024.9.22.986, if and when it's approved.

@mib2berlin, I have enough with the Vivaldi Blocker which does a good work. I no longer trust security and privacy extensions from the Chrome Store.

[Pathduck]

Sooo much internetz drama

[Catweazle]

@Pathduck, yeah, Game of Thrones

[DoctorG]

Mozilla addons team revised manually. ROFL
I fear these dumb dudes used AI for a answer instead of analysing code.

I thinks Mozilla tech team does not want any addon which could disturbe their own ad injections sneaking into Mozillas browser.

[barbudo2005]

@Pathduck

Said:

Sooo much internetz drama

There is no drama at all or false drama.

Those users of Vivaldi or other Chromium browsers that have already migrated or will migrate to Firefox in June 2025, intend to use uBO.

For Gorhill it takes a load off their shoulders. He should only support uBO for Firefox and uBOL for Chromium browsers. Deep down he must be happy.

[wintercoast]

@Catweazle Why is uBlock Origin Lite even required on Firefox? They're not deprecating Mv2.

[DoctorG]

@wintercoast said in uBlock Origin Lite maker ends Firefox support due to “hostile” dispute with Mozilla:

Why is uBlock Origin Lite even required on Firefox?

Because users use this extension.

[wintercoast]

@DoctorG I had the impression uBO Lite was crafted specifically to be Mv3 compatible. What other advantages does it have over uBO on Firefox other than this? That's what puzzles me.

[barbudo2005]

@wintercoast

Said:

What other advantages does it have over uBO on Firefox other than this?

None.
uBO can also be used in a basic way, for those who do not want the advanced functions.
Therefore uBOL is redundant in Firefox.

[mathieulefrancois]

It's so sad to see what Mozilla has become.

[DoctorG]

@mathieulefrancois That is worse with large US foundations like Mozilla they have the power to restrict freedom of development and they give not much on some developers.

[Catweazle]

@mathieulefrancois, agree, Mozilla isn't what it once was. The mistake they made was signing a contract with Google as a sponsor and recently they also signed a contract with another advertising company for their income. This, in turn, has caused them to now have to bow to the conditions of these investors, losing their independence.
Google has made Mozilla its mascot, there now are even Google Devs working on Firefox.