Gorhill pulls uBlock Origin Lite from Firefox store

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

A conflict between Mozilla’s add-on review process and the creator of uBlock Origin Lite has led to the ad blocker’s Manifest V3-based “Lite” version being pulled from Firefox’s official extension store, even though the full Manifest V2 uBlock Origin remains available. Commenters argue that Mozilla’s reviews relied on flawed or automated checks that falsely flagged the extension for issues like data collection and minified code, creating needless friction for a high-profile, unpaid maintainer. The episode feeds into wider concerns about browser extension gatekeeping, Mozilla’s governance and ad-tech ties, and the long‑term health of Firefox’s add-on ecosystem at a time when Chrome is restricting powerful ad blockers.

What actually happened

  • The Manifest V3-based “Lite” version of uBlock Origin was removed from Mozilla’s add-on store after a review found supposed policy violations (data collection without consent, minified/obfuscated code, missing privacy policy).
  • The extension maintainer disputed all points, showed they were false, and highlighted that the flagged file had been unchanged for years.
  • Mozilla later acknowledged the error, restored the listing, and apologized. The maintainer then voluntarily delisted Lite from the store and moved to self‑hosting.
  • The full (Manifest V2) uBlock Origin remains on the Firefox store and is unaffected.

Impact on users and importance of uBlock

  • Many commenters say uBlock Origin is the main or only reason they still use Firefox, especially on mobile.
  • Some note that Lite is less critical on Firefox desktop, since full uBlock still works there and Firefox will keep Manifest V2.
  • Others point out that Lite mattered for Firefox Android (lower resource use, fewer permissions) and for users who prefer more limited permissions.

Criticism of Mozilla’s review and signing process

  • Repeated themes:
    • Review claims that were plainly incorrect and appeared to come from automated heuristics, despite emails asserting “manual review.”
    • Extremely slow approvals, even for self-hosted or minor updates, and especially frustrating for hobby/volunteer maintainers.
    • High friction around reproducible builds, build environments, and private dependencies.
  • Multiple extension developers share similar negative experiences with AMO reviews (false flags, long delays, confusing feedback).
  • Some argue that high-profile, widely used extensions should get:
    • Faster, more careful review, possibly multiple reviewers or senior escalation.
    • Direct human contact and a dedicated liaison.
  • Others defend the need for pre‑release review and strict policies due to real supply‑chain and malware risks.

Debate over Mozilla’s direction and incentives

  • Strong criticism:
    • Mozilla is seen as over-bureaucratic, incompetent at reviews, and increasingly aligned with ad-tech (sponsored content, “privacy-preserving attribution,” acquisition of an ad company).
    • Some suspect soft pressure from Google, given Mozilla’s heavy search-deal funding and the fact adblockers threaten ad revenue.
  • Counterpoints:
    • Many attribute the incident to human error and under-resourced processes rather than malice.
    • Some see Mozilla as still the least-bad major browser vendor and emphasize that Chrome’s Manifest V3 deprecation is the bigger structural problem.

Broader themes: extensions, stores, and control

  • Concerns that mandatory signing and store gatekeeping make Firefox less “your browser” and more like locked-down mobile platforms.
  • Others welcome vetting as a safety net but say false positives and opaque bureaucracy are unacceptable, especially for cornerstone extensions.
  • Several call for:
    • Alternative add-on repositories, PPA-like models, or user-selectable trust stores.
    • More granular permissions and better sandboxes instead of blunt restrictions.