https://wiki.mozilla.org/Add-ons/Extension_Signing
> Is this a way for Mozilla to censor add-ons they don't like, enforce copyright, government demands, etc.?
> No, the purpose of this is to protect users from malicious add-ons. We have a set of guidelines (https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Add-ons/AMO/Policy/Revie...) for when it is appropriate to blocklist an add-on and have refused multiple times to block for other reasons.
Is Mozilla refusing to sign the add-on? Or just refusing to host it on addons.mozilla.org? There's a big difference. If the extension can still be signed, it's easy to install on production Firefox builds. If it can't be signed, then it can only be installed on Nightly or Developer builds with xpinstall.signatures.required disabled in about:config.
Assuming the bans are at Russia's request, what's the worst Russia could do if Mozilla refused to comply?
Russia could block mozilla.org (in which case 1000s of clones would likely emerge). Mozilla is a not for profit. Why not simply ignore such requests..
Mozilla shared this yesterday in the ama
Here's the statement we're sharing with the press:
In alignment with our commitment to an open and accessible internet, Mozilla will reinstate previously restricted listings in Russia. Our initial decision to temporarily restrict these listings was made while we considered the regulatory environment in Russia and the potential risk to our community and staff.
As outlined in our Manifesto, Mozilla's core principles emphasize the importance of an internet that is a global public resource, open and accessible to all. Users should be free to customize and enhance their online experience through add-ons without undue restrictions.
By reinstating these add-ons, we reaffirm our dedication to:
Openness: Promoting a free and open internet where users can shape their online experience.
Accessibility: Ensuring that the internet remains a public resource accessible to everyone, regardless of geographical location.
Mozilla is starting to seriously have a long list of highly questionable if not directly user hostile behaviors. They are hiding behind the fact that they are the almost only viable alternative to the chrome ecosystem... But they may well loose that advantage. What should we think of their VPN they try to promote so much if they bow to Russian demands for blocking extensions...
Hello folks, latest update available here: https://discourse.mozilla.org/t/the-censorship-circumvention...
ublock origin is blocked in china, in same way.
otherwise the whole amo would be blocked.
With all the criticism of Mozilla here, it wouldn't be any help to keep these few extensions available, and get the whole website blocked. It's possible to get addons signed and distribute it on other websites. On the other hand, when Apple complies with demands, there's no way to install apps anymore.
Does Mozilla have any assets or workers located in Russia? If yes, this could be the reason, as the censors won't hesitate to go after them, and the law in Russia is whatever Kremlin says it is. If there aren't then it's just unbelievable cowardice which lacks any explanation.
Mozilla does all sorts of problematic things all the time, but none of them have been as ethically terrible as this. I hope this is a temporary misunderstanding.
And you cannot install dev extension in mozilla like chrome without uploading in addons hub. Mozilla is becoming to bad these days.
Is there a way to side-load Mozilla extensions and circumvent their store? We see now that any central-authority store is a net negative for online freedoms and rights.
The browser extension which might be useful only in Russia suddenly stopped being accessible from Russia? Seems like a possible source of income for the corporation.
uBlock Origin is ban in china
Mozilla: we're all for freedom & users privacy, but Putins regime pays us too much money!
This is a new low for Mozilla.
MAANG and quasi-nonprofit husks of former megacorps aren't your friends. They tend to do the bidding of authoritarian regimes, enable genocides like Myanmar, and disclose metadata facilitating the targeting of civilians.
Pecunia non olet
This sort of thing is exactly why browser extensions never should have required Mozilla's "approval" in the first place; forcing people onto beta or developer builds to have proper control over their own software is an appalling failure to live up to their stated ideology. If they wanted to "protect" average users, they could have defaulted to only allowing approved extensions and made it clear how to opt out for users who wish to do so.
This sort of condescending, controlling, anti-user behavior was one of the reasons I left Mozilla, and the politically/culturally difficult situations it puts them in are a bed they have, unfortunately, made for themselves.
I'm the author of "Runet Censorship Bypass". We help Russians to circumvent state censorship while with some tricks the extension may also be used to bypass private discrimination or sanctions-based censorship.
We received no notifications about this restriction. Waiting for the official statement or just any comment from Mozilla.