• vintageballs@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    Deutsch
    arrow-up
    69
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year 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
      ·
      1 year ago

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

        • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year 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
          ·
          1 year ago

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

      • abbenm@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year 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.

    • 0x0
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      I honestly see no purpose in

      It’s to circumvent ManifestV3.

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

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

      • Obinice@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year 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.

        • pmk@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

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

        • abbenm@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year 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.

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

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