> uBlock Origin Lite is a Manifest V3-compatible version of the content blocker. It is less powerful, but since Google is disabling Manifest V2 support in Chrome, it is what will remain from uBlock Origin for Chromium-based browsers.
> Does it affect uBlock Origin? The core extension remains available for Firefox. Unlike Google Chrome, Firefox will continue to support Manifest V2 extensions. Mozilla has not flagged this extensions or disabled it
But somehow it is Mozilla who is the bad guy not Chromium-based browsers.
This story is about Mozilla removing the Lite/Manifest v3 version from Firefox's extensions, this has nothing to with Chromium.
Now why does such a version even exist when the "normal" uBlock Origin is available on Firefox, I don't know. But there's no question it was a mistake by Mozilla. Mistakes do happen, I'm just explaining why it's only related to Mozilla's actions here.
To be clear, the complaint is not about Manifest V2 vs. Manifest V3 (which is of course its own can of nonsense), but about Mozilla's review:
> Mozilla says that it has reviewed the extension and found violations. The following claims were made:
> The extension is not asking for consent for data collecting.
> The extension contains "minified, concatenated or otherwise machine-generated code".
> There is no privacy policy.
The article points out that all three points are false, and this, or—I'll go ahead and trust the author of an extension I rely on heavily—what the author says:
> In a follow-up, Hill criticized the "nonsensical and hostile review process" that put added burden on developers. Mozilla disabled all versions of the extension except for the very first one. It still flagged the extension for the very same reasons, but nevertheless decided to keep the outdated version up.
is what makes Mozilla the bad guy here. (It also says Mozilla restored the extension a few days later, which is better than doubling down but, of course, worse than not making the ridiculous error in the first place.)
The article seemed to highlight the inconsistencies or errors in the plugin review process which puts undue burden on developers trying to add value to the ecosystem. It was not about the differences in Manifest v2/3 and the issues with Chrome, though this was mentioned and is the reason why the 'Lite' version of uBlock Origin exists in the first place.
tl;dr - continue using Firefox and installing uBlock Origin. If you develop Firefox plugins for distribution through their official channel beware the review process I guess.
I mean, those are _completely_ separate issues? People can be mad at Google/Chrome about Manifest V3, whilst also being mad at Mozilla/Firefox for randomly flagging UBOL with bullshit reasons.
My bet is on bail-out or resell to msft . Google is possible which would be nice assuming same treatment as yt but meta is unlikely since they have threads .
Musk bought it to cancel the woke culture but got cancelled instead, lol.
FWIW it's not really fair that everyone interesting left just because they didn't like Musk which turned twitter into boring place, basically self reinforcing cycle.
When you choose to turn your establishment into a Nazi bar, people who don't want to hang out with Nazis will find someplace else to be. That isn't unfair, that's just the consequences of your actions.
Musk didn't want those interesting people on his platform to begin with, and he he did everything he could to drive them away.
> What I witnessed was tons of people jumping ship on day 1.
There were definitely waves of jumping ship. Some people left on day 1, presumably because, well, life is too short to have to deal with Musk. But IIRC the biggest boosts to Mastodon traffic (for most of the early period Bluesky was invite only so not a useful metric) were around when it started banning a bunch of journalists (this later seems to have been abandoned as a strategy), brought back a bunch of particularly egregious lunatics, and nuked the third party API. Those inciting events were scattered from late 2022 to early 2023.
You don't have to squint very hard to find them, given that the result of Elon's quest to destroy Twitter's "woke mind virus" (which he was ranting about when he bought the platform) is making a safe space for them and boosting their content as much as possible.
Let's not forget that he didn't want to buy Twitter. He was using the threat in order to try to bully Twitter's board. They called his bluff and forced him to go through with it at an absurdly inflated price.
Thank you for sharing that perspective. I'd never heard it put that way before and this makes it crystal clear what Musk was trying to accomplish. It also explains why Musk seemingly doesn't care about "the numbers."
As content suggest 'solution' in the title is bit stretch. You would need several generations of forest covering the earth in order to make it solution. Not counting in the growth of CO2 emissions.
Not sure if it is really sanitization issue. But certainly perceived one - it can be mess.
This was not unique to US. I remember on the other side of the Iron Curtain we planted in cities mostly just male dioecious trees.
Finally no fruit ...just pollen everywhere. (Good luck with allergies)
I read it as: disable JavaScript before continuing.
reply