We received no notifications about this restriction. Waiting for the official statement or just any comment from Mozilla.
> 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.
So it looks like they are still signed, but they are not available on amo in Russia. The extensions can still be installed on production Firefox builds if they are hosted elsewhere, such as:
Runet Censorship Bypass: https://files.catbox.moe/g7mww2.xpi
Censor Tracker: https://files.catbox.moe/37grym.xpi
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..
The worst? Probably murder.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Russian_assassinatio...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspicious_deaths_of_Russian...
Having said that the list contains many names of people who would be hunted and killed by any government. Imagine Apache starting revolt, murdering civilians, keeping / trading slaves, cutting heads etc. etc. Whoever the author of the article is - they did a shitty job.
This list is a big disservice to true victims of Putin, like Navalny and the likes.
We saw that when companies like McDonalds could no longer operate in Russia, Russia essentially took the McDonalds and created a knock-off. If Russia decided to ban Firefox, they may just fire up a knock off and sell it to the populace as Mozilla is an evil American corporation so they have created RuskieFox and all that national pride stuff. Would tech saavy people trust the Russian knock off? My guess is the tech saavy people won't and will find ways to get firefox from Mozilla. But the non-tech saavy? Probably not. From this, if we assume Mozilla is doing what it can to protect users (which may or may not be the case), it would be better to comply but Russians get official builds of Firefox than being banned and the Russian government replacing Firefox with their own build.
> Would tech saavy people trust the Russian knock off?
No one with a single brain cell uses the Yandex web browser. It's akin to giving the Russian authorities full access to your entire web presence.
> But the non-tech saavy?
For those Firefox has never existed. Most people in Russia use: Yandex web browser, Opera or Google Chrome.
> From this, if we assume Mozilla is doing what it can to protect users (which may or may not be the case), it would be better to comply but Russians get official builds of Firefox than being banned and the Russian government replacing Firefox with their own build.
Mozilla loses nothing from not complying but gains reputation and trust of not sharing the bed with Putin.
Because no one is helped by that, least of all Russian people wanting to use Firefox. It seems fairly obvious that "all of Firefox is not available in Russia" is worse than "two extensions are not available in Russia".
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.
The project manager for it used to work in the advertising industry. When the ticket was filed in Bugzilla, she quickly set it to be private to try and hide it. Another mozilla employee put it back to public, and then the ticket was set such that not even employees could see it by Mozilla executive leadership.
How about them ramming Pocket down everyone's throats?
Or the 2022 "partnership" with Facebook over an advertising a "privacy preserving" advertising standard?
How about the CEO's astronomical pay increases while market share sank? How about the fact that they now have a billion dollars in assets, half of that in cash? And they slashed their software development budget a year or two ago? And paid someone ~350,000+ to write an "AI and racial justice" report?
https://lunduke.locals.com/post/4387539/firefox-money-invest...
And then there's the partnership with an identity protection service (why the fuck is a browser company getting involved in that!?) whose CEO was running people-search network sites https://krebsonsecurity.com/2024/03/mozilla-drops-onerep-aft...
Would you care to provide examples? I am a longtime user of Mozilla products unfamiliar with the topic and I am genuinely curious.
> What should we think of their VPN they try to promote so much
Mozilla does not have its own service but rather resells Mullvad, one of the most privacy focused services in existence. Is there more to this story that I am unaware of?
"""
Mozilla replaced a feature that was end to end encrypted with one that sent private data to a third party for data mining. They denied getting paid for the integration. That was technically true. They eventually admitted they got paid for referrals. They bought the company in 2017 and promised to release the source code. They still haven't. The Pocket website says "as a member of the Firefox family, privacy is paramount."[1] The first part is misleading and the second part is simply false.
"""
otherwise the whole amo would be blocked.
how china blocks that? ublock sucks anyway if you're using 127.0.0.1:53 with unbound/dnscrypt or something
You just have to download it somewhere.
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.
If Mozilla refuses to sign the extensions, then we can pick up the pitchforks again.
I wish some talented bunch of people forked Brave to allow sideloading extensions and strip it of the crypto stuff.
You don't need Mozilla's approval; anyone can publish an add-on anywhere and anyone can install it in Firefox. I've distributed some bespoke non-public addons like this.
It's just the Mozilla add-on website/listing that's curated, which seems reasonable; it's their website and they can have their rules.[1] You can make your own "clipsy add-on listing" website if you want.
[1]: in this case, it's not even "banned", just not displayed in Russia. It was probably a "ban these extensions or we'll ban all of Firefox" type scenario. Saying "njet" to Putin is tempting, but how does all of Firefox being banned in Russia help Russian people? It doesn't. You may not like the situation, but simplistic takes which simply ignore the reality of the situation are not serious.
Nope. Not on Android.