• vintageballs@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    Deutsch
    arrow-up
    68
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    16 hours ago

    Probably due to automatic extension reviews by Mozilla.

    Sad that it happened, but at least it doesn’t impact the actual uBlock, only the lite version for which I honestly see no purpose in Firefox anyways.

    • Virkkunen@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      73
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      16 hours ago

      It was a manual review conducted by an actual person that in the end admitted they were wrong

        • NotSteve_
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 hours ago

          In the original post on GitHub it’s mentioned that it was a manual review

      • abbenm@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 hours ago

        It was a manual review conducted by an actual person that in the end admitted they were wrong

        Good to know! I wasn’t sure if it was automated or not. That’s rough.

        • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 hours ago

          Agreed. Especially considering uBlock origin is pretty much the main reason to use FF at all. They shouldn’t be delegating reviews of it to someone who would fuck up this badly.

          Assuming this wasn’t a “test the waters” kind of thing to determine just how much they were reliant on ublock.

          I’ve been using the main FF build for a while now but I’m wondering if I should start looking at the various fork options.

        • Obinice@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          13 hours ago

          Are you like, those old multi colour swirly rubber balls we used to get out of 20p machines as kids? Those were ill!

        • eRac@lemmings.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 hours ago

          The dev stated that it mostly exists for more performance-limited applications like mobile.

      • Obinice@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        13 hours ago

        I thought that was the shit Chrome was doing to block adblockers and antimalware plugins, if Firefox is doing the same thing what browser do we use now? :-(

        I don’t care about all the browser wars stuff, I lost interest when it was Netscape Vs IE, I just want a browser that I can configure fully myself and have it be as safe and secure as one can make it, within reason.

        • abbenm@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 hours ago

          I thought that was the shit Chrome was doing to block adblockers and antimalware plugins, if Firefox is doing the same thing what browser do we use now? :-(

          They’re doing a modified version of V3 that they changed to restore ad-blocking functionality.

        • pmk@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          12 hours ago

          If we want to do something radically different, there’s always gopher and gemini browsers.

    • Aatube@kbin.melroy.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 hours ago

      Theoretically, the browser executes the Mv3 blocking rules, so it could be optimized and more efficient than js ever could.