Latest uBlock Origin Update Rejected from the Chrome Web Store. No time like the present to switch to Firefox.

@calm @yogthos @pupy still no time like the present to switch to firefox, which *doesn't* require someone personally beg a mozilla employee to accept the latest build of the #1 extension required to make a browser safely usable in 2019

@alexis @calm @yogthos @pupy Agreed that this is a pretty significant reminder to switch off of Google Chrome, as the APIs that allow uBlock to work are likely to be removed (or at least gutted) in the next couple of releases anyway.

May as well transition to a browser that isn't based on that rendering engine now, while it's possible to make a more graceful switch.

@yogthos Most of the time, my default is Firefox, anyway. :P

@yogthos ... to switch to Firefox based SecBrowser, of course – which is Tor Browser without Tor –, if you can.

@mastor oh please no, I don't even see whether this is FLOSS or so. Use Tor Browser for browsing via Tor, period. It has everything you need, everything else just makes you more fingerprintable.

> uBlock rejected from the Chrome Web Store ... switch to Firefox

Our jail became too uncomfortable, let’s move to another one!

Go free? No, what’s a nonsense!


For a no profit organization it's pretty wealthy thanks to its commercial patners: from #Google to #CloudFlare, I don't think we can qualify #Mozilla products as #free.


@Shamar @yogthos

[Mozilla]’s pretty wealthy thanks to its commercial partners I don’t think we can qualify #Mozilla products as #free.

Being poor does not make software you make free. Respecting user’s freedoms to use it for any purpose, modify to suite any needs, and distribute for any fee with or without modifications does.

You are not allowed even to redistribute exact, unmodified copies of Mozilla Firefox® free of charge — what’s to think about here? Of course, it’s nonfree.


One could say that there is no link between #freedom pursuit and #wealth, and according to liberals and their #propaganda / #marketing / theoretical framework there isn't any.

But statistically, groups that collect wealth just pretend to fight for freedom.

After all wealth is a form of #power and power restricts others' freedom.

So ultimately rich philantrophism is just a marketing investment. Or a form of corruption. Or, most of times, both.

#Mozilla's wealth come from #US companies that work in the opposite direction of what they pretend to do. So they align with their interests.

We shouldn't forget what #OpenSource is: a marketing tool.

They want to be confused with the #FreeSoftware built from the #hackers they marginalize, but they have nothing to do with us.


@Shamar @yogthos

But statistically, groups that collect wealth just pretend to fight for freedom.

I dunno what this statistics is, but history teaches us that groups that collected enough wealth do value their freedom, and are perfectly ready to fight for it. If necessary, literally fight — with weapons. These fights are now known as bourgeois revolutions.

And I do not see, why freedom of computing should be an exception. Does Google willingly use nonfree software? I never heard of any example and I bet — no: they do value a freedom to make their computing however they wish, without asking anyone’s assent. But even Google is not almighty: we know, they failed to eliminate Intel ME (a malware built into all modern Intel CPUs), but note — they tried.

They do not bother about our freedom, of course.

@yogthos @Shamar

from everything I’ve read Mozilla is barely scraping by

So what? You choose your tools out of pity for their developers?

@yogthos @Shamar

the only … preventing Chrome from being the only game in town

Your metaphoric language only obscure things. Please, be specific. Firefox is the only browser besides Chrome? No, there are plenty of them, and some are free. Gecko is the only free webengine besides Blink? No, the original WebKit is still there.

but saying it’s just like Google is just false equivalence

So don’t say that. Be specific in your words: Firefox is a nonfree browser built from free sources — just like Chrome; Firefox is a jail, where you are not allowed to install addons without permit, — just like Chrome.

But for sure there are differences: for instance, Google never tries to present its browser as something freedom-respecting. In other words, Google is honest in that respect, while Mozilla is not.

@yogthos @Shamar

Firefox is the only alternative to Chrome that will work as expected for vast majority of the users


If Chrome gets a dominant market share

It already did. Blink, which it what really matters for your scenario, has even more.

We’ve already lived through exact same thing with IE.

That’s just a false equivalence. There is hardly anything in common between a sector dominated by a nonfree engine welded into a single nonfree product nailed to a single nonfree system and by a free cross-platform reusable engine.

Really, this is more like complaining about domination of Linux — nothing particularly good, but nothing critical either.

I can do whatever I want with Firefox, including loading custom add-ons in practice

Which indicates, that you either use a non-mainstream edition (e. g. “developer’s”) or your distributor violates the Firefox licence (which is fairly common, as Mozilla usually turns a blind eye to it).

And there is a perfectly valid security reason for discouraging that.

Yes, security is a well-known pretext for discouraging freedom.

what alternative do you propose for somebody who’s non technical?

I do not propose ‘alternatives’ [0], I propose free software. If someone get used to Google Chrome® but now realised that it’s a jail, there is no reason to push him to Firefox®, there is free Chromium awaiting for him. Same the other way round.



Blink is the de facto engine, that puts us right back to the days of IE

Our dialogue got in a loop.


#Chromium is not much different from #Firefox: both depends on #Google money.


#GAFAM controls #WHATWG too and #LivingStandards follow the predominant implementations (guess who is predominant) so, despite the rhetoric there is no openness (nor #Freedom) in such "Open Standards".

As for #W3C I think this comment express well the state of affairs since years:

@yogthos @Shamar

I don’t see anything in MPL

Yes, here’s how Mozilla baffles naive users. MPL is not the the only document that comprises the end-licence of Firefox®.

that would classify it as nonfree

For instance, that is more than enough to render Firefox® nonfree: “If you wish to directly distribute copies of Firefox yourself, you must distribute the latest stable version available at”. As well as that: “You may not charge for Firefox”. Or that: “You may not add to, remove, or change any part of Firefox”.

Mozilla already distributes Firefox free of charge

As well as Google.

and it does not prevent anybody from using Firefox as a base for their own browser either

As well as Google.


how’s Firefox a jail?

In the exactly same way Google Chrome is: it’s a nonfree software that have digital restrictions built-in to prevent you from installing extensions, that are not approved by its true master. That was what you’d complained about, was not it?

Mozilla is a non profit organization

How the hell this is any relevant? In any case:

$ whois | grep '^Registrant' Registrant Organization: Mozilla Corporation Registrant State/Province: CA Registrant Country: US

‘Corporation’, not ‘Foundation’.

@yogthos @wakingrufus Here’s a response from a Google employee saying the extension has been (finally) approved. There’s some insights into the escalation process too.

@yogthos this is one reason why things like app stores are better decentralized and community driven!

Sign in to participate in the conversation

Server run by the main developers of the project 🐘 It is not focused on any particular niche interest - everyone is welcome as long as you follow our code of conduct!