Mozilla silently bans 2 anti-state-censorship add-ons in Russia

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Overview of the incident & current status

  • Two Firefox add-ons used to bypass Russian state censorship disappeared from the Russian-facing Mozilla Add-ons site without notice to the developers.
  • The extensions remain signed and available in other regions; users can still install them via direct XPI downloads or mirrors.
  • Mozilla later issued a statement (quoted in the thread) saying the restrictions were temporary while they assessed Russian regulations and risks, and that the listings will be reinstated in line with their “open and accessible internet” principles.

Motives, ethics, and “cowardice vs realism” debate

  • Many commenters see the geo-restriction as user-hostile, hypocritical for a “pro-privacy/freedom” organization, and effectively aiding authoritarian censorship.
  • Others argue Mozilla likely faced a “comply or get Firefox blocked entirely” ultimatum and that keeping Firefox accessible in Russia, even with some censored extensions, is the lesser evil.
  • A minority suggests possible risks to employees or community members in Russia; others counter that Mozilla has no known assets there and call the move simple cowardice.

Extension signing, centralization, and workarounds

  • Long discussion on Mozilla’s extension-signing regime:
    • Production Firefox generally requires Mozilla-signed add-ons; unsigned ones need dev/beta/nightly builds or hacks.
    • Some argue this gives Mozilla de facto veto power and enables censorship via the store.
    • Others say signing is a weak, mostly rubber-stamp security measure and Mozilla has not refused signing here, only delisted regionally.
  • Workarounds include self-hosted signed XPIs, using alternative Firefox builds (Fennec, ESR, distro builds, forks), or modifying binaries.

Comparisons to other regimes and censorship

  • Parallel drawn to uBlock Origin being hidden on the Chinese AMO variant to avoid the entire site being blocked.
  • Some argue partial compliance to keep broader access is pragmatic; others say standing firm would build trust, even if official channels are blocked.

Broader criticism of Mozilla

  • Commenters list other grievances: telemetry/surveillance concerns, closed-source DRM, forced Pocket integration, past “Mr. Robot” promo extension, ad-tech partnerships, executive pay, and perceived politicization.
  • Some still back Firefox due to its independent engine versus the Chromium/WebKit monoculture; others are exploring forks or non-web options entirely.