An update to UBlock Origin was rejected by the Chrome Web Store

https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/issues/880

by vzjrz • 11 years ago

323 113 11 years ago

github.com

cven714• 11 years ago

Will this affect those of us who already have it installed?

teamhappy2• 11 years ago

Nope.

lettergram• 11 years ago

That should be fine. Only the update was rejected

baldfat• 11 years ago

From the developer above:

However the email I received is titled "Chrome Web Store: Removal notification for uBlock Origin".

Nexxxeh2• 11 years ago

In the immediate term, no, it shouldn't. The update was rejected, but the already published version remains up. There's nothing catastrophic in the earlier version.

In the medium term, yes, because if this issues can't be resolved then the Chrome version will be stuck on that version and lag behind other browsers.

And while there are hoops you can jump through, if it's not approved on the Chrome Web Store, it's not getting in your Chrome.

On the plus side, sounds like good news for Opera.

caoilte• 11 years ago

Can you not install extensions directly any more?

Killswitch• 11 years ago

Shouldn't but if it's taken down, you can just download the code from the repo and install it using developer mode.

eli3• 11 years ago

Headline is wrong. An update to the plugin was rejected (with the option to resubmit), but the previous version is clearly still in the store: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ublock-origin/cjpa...

I empathize with the developer, but Occam's Razor suggests this isn't anything more than a typically crummy vague Walled Garden app store rejection. I'd take their advice and re-submit.

gorhill2• 11 years ago

Yes, it still is in the store as of now.

However the email I received is titled "Chrome Web Store: Removal notification for uBlock Origin".

In any case, it's just impossible for me to figure what is the issue. I could spend a inordinate amount of time guess-shuffling code around for no result.

Assuming the email title is misleading -- let's say uBlock Origin won't be removed from the Chrome store, there is nothing special in 1.3.2 compared to any other releases, and from the look of it I won't ever be able to fix whatever is deemed wrong without specifics, and as a consequence, no updates lead to abandonware.

Edit: I will add that with Firefox and Opera, there has always been communication with specifics when I was asked to fix something, and I always did fix as demanded (or suggested).

maxerickson• 11 years ago

Are the block lists maybe considered code?

Updating them at first start would fit the description of not having them visible in the package.

teamhappy2• 11 years ago

Looks like there's nothing wrong with 1.2, so we (the users) can just sit this one out, right?

eli3• 11 years ago

Please reply to this email for issues regarding this item removal.

Have you tried telling them that?

Failing that -- if it were me -- I'd resubmit perhaps with the only addition of a README that briefly explains the file layout.

deelowe2• 11 years ago

It looks like 1.3.2 was released a day ago. Have you tried reaching out to get clarification? I'd give it a week or two before buying pitchforks and torches. The app reviewers are fallible just like anyone els. It seems that you never have had this issue before.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor

olb• 11 years ago

In any case, it's just impossible for me to figure what is the issue. I could spend a inordinate amount of time guess-shuffling code around for no result.

I’d caution against the shuffling code around to try to reverse engineer the approval rules. I tried the same with a similar extension (Adblock Fast) that got rejected for similar reasons (no reasons as far as I could tell). Result: my dev account got automatically suspended. I had to get a Google friend to get me unsuspended. Google seems to have added very aggressive automated approval and suspension rules. I’d reply to their email and see if they reply back first.

noxToken• 11 years ago

But if the headline was "uBlock Origin Update Rejected from Chrome Web Store", we couldn't insight a digital riot. If something negative happens to a product or software that we like, it's better to burn everything to ground first with our knee-jerk reactions rather than looking for an explanation.

This is the same thing that we chastise other people for. Yet here we are ready to switch to FireFox and Edge due to what is surely an automated misunderstanding. We are better than this. If not, we _should_ be better than this.

cballard2• 11 years ago

Apps that do controversial things with respect to Apple or Google seem to get rejected for seemingly random technical reasons a lot.

What does it even mean for code in a packaged program to be "visible"? It should be invisible! That's the whole point of packaging!

sqldba• 11 years ago

Yes. It's bad news and exactly why free software supporters need to keep fighting the good fight and spreading the word.

We can't allow technical oligarchies control over what we do with our computing, enacting stupid policies, with no outside visibility or accountability.

eli3• 11 years ago

Apps that do non-controversial things get rejected for seemingly random technical reasons a lot too.

deelowe2• 11 years ago

Apps that do controversial things with respect to Apple or Google seem to get rejected for seemingly random technical reasons a lot.

This is regarding the chrome web store, not the play store. Also, I'm aware of Apple taking a pretty heavy handed approach, but I'm not convinced Google has a history of this.

What does it even mean for code in a packaged program to be "visible"? It should be invisible! That's the whole point of packaging!

Perhaps you are assuming this is the play store instead of the chrome web store? Web store apps are just web pages. They want to ensure the packages are easy to inspect and understand. It's a rule that appears to be attempting to maintain open web standards. Given that this is HN, I assume that's enough of a justification for anyone reading this comment.

emodendroket• 11 years ago

It's hard to wonder if Google doesn't "have a history" when they banned all ad blockers from the Play Store and are (maybe) rejecting ad blockers from the Chrome Web store for vague technical reasons, particularly when their business model revolves around ads.

cballard2• 11 years ago

I am fully aware of which app store this is.

Chrome web apps support NaCL. Why do JS-based apps need to have readable source code?

https://developer.chrome.com/native-client/devguide/distribu...

markbao• 11 years ago

Could this just be survivorship bias? We don't hear about all the non-ad-blockers that got rejected by Apple or Google for the same reasons. If they wanted to ban apps like this, they would likely just ban them, instead of stirring the pot by taking them down and then putting them back online.

kalleboo• 11 years ago

All apps get rejected for seemingly random technical reasons a lot.

Apps that do controversial things end up on the front page of Hacker News/Reddit, so you actually hear about them. The other apps just... die.

AdmiralAsshat• 11 years ago

"Where possible, make as much of your code visible in the package as you can. If some of your app's logic is hidden and it appears to be suspicious, we may remove it."

This is the policy it "broke" apparently. Despite the entire app being open source and commented, someone at Google could not understand his code and hence found it obfuscated or "suspicious".

drzaiusapelord• 11 years ago

Textbook harassment here. Google is upset these guys are hurting ad impressions. I wonder if this is the beginning of an ad blocking backlash.

wutbrodo3• 11 years ago

That's an enormous tinfoil hat, even by hn standards

manigandham8• 11 years ago

What's "textbook" about it?

Google could eliminate all adblocking extensions from the chrome store instantly if they wanted to - but they haven't. This seems like, and now proven to be, just a mistake.

jug• 11 years ago

"Please reply to this email for issues regarding this item removal."

Maybe he could try that?

jessaustin• 11 years ago

Google is famous for never responding to anything. Which is fine; that's their business model. However, it does mean that if they wanted to communicate, they would have included the full description of the issues, in the email that notified him of the existence of the issues. It's not like they sent him a tweet. Emails can include lots of detail.

takeda• 11 years ago

Well, you are guaranteed they won't respond if you don't send a email to them.

manigandham8• 11 years ago

I've sent dozens of emails to Google as both a general consumer and a business vendor. I've always gotten a response.

valarauca12• 11 years ago

The core reasons appears:

"Where possible, make as much of your code visible in the package as you can. If some of your app's logic is hidden and it appears to be suspicious, we may remove it."

Which maybe true, but odd as the project is publicly hosted freeware. It could be a case of simply an automatic algorithm making an incorrect call.

Its also worth considering Google's primary revenue stream is advertisement, which uBlock attempts to subvert to a degree.

rhaps0dy• 11 years ago

Careful with words. It's not freeware, it's free software.

valarauca12• 11 years ago

I'd just like to interject for a second...

t_fatus• 11 years ago

There are a bit less than 1000 lines changed from 1.2.0 to 1.3.2 (https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/compare/1.2.0...1.3.2) I'm pretty sure google's Chrome dev team could check them by hand in less than a day and be a little more specific on what is their real problem with this submission !

dchest• 11 years ago

Not the first time Chrome Web Store people mess with uBlock Origin: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/issues/50

weirdentropy4• 11 years ago

I've switched over from ABP to UBlock Origin. UBO is so much faster than ABP, uses fewer resources, and does a better job. And, most importantly, they do not get in bed with the ad companies to arrange for acceptable ads. There are no acceptable ads in my view (no pun intended). I block ads precisely because they use my bandwidth, they are a vector for malware, they interfere with my viewing of websites, they track me (this should be illegal), many, many more bad things.

In addition to UBlock Origin, I block DOM, HTTP/S referrer, CSS visited links (surfing history viewable by websites), block WebRTC (leaks private IP address schemas), and more. I have a right to a clutter-free Internet that is not tracking me, using my bandwidth without my consent, and doing everything to make money from me without my consent or sharing with me should it do so. No, thank you. I will continue to block all ads, tracking cookies, beacons, you name it. I somewhat enjoy the cold war between users and the ad companies.

fsaintjacques• 11 years ago

Second time I see your comment, would you care sharing how you accomplish all this?

weirdentropy4• 11 years ago

Sure.

I use Firefox and install the following: - Disconnect

- Ublock Origen (choose 3rd-Party block lists to suit.)

- Privacy Badger (no set up, just install, it learns as you go)

In Firefox, use about:config to change the following: - Toggle dom.storage.enabled to False

- Toggle layout.css.visited_links_enabled to False

- Toggle media.peerconnection.enabled to False

- Toggle network.prefetch-next to False

- Toggle network.http.sendReferrerHeader to 0 (zero)

- Toggle network.http.sendSecureXSiteReferrer to False

These settings have worked for me with no issues. I bank, do all manner of things online with no issues. I do, however, see no ads, no tracking, faster page loads, clean experience all around.

ep103• 11 years ago

well hopefully you don't have verizon, as they've announced plans to inject customer specific identifiers into all requests seen from their customers for tracking reporting and reselling. just fyi

weirdentropy4• 11 years ago

Yes, I saw this, but it doesn't affect HTTPS traffic.

theg24• 11 years ago

What a magical world you live in where everything is free and no one needs to be paid for their work.

Ads have been abused by companies over the years but whitelisting sites that whose content and services you value and don't abuse you with those ads are the only reason they can afford to exist.

Edit: I get it, you don't want ads. People have abused them over the years and that's bad. My only point is that whitelisting (or donating/subscribing to where possible) the sites you value keeps those sites running. It's nice that some sites don't need financial support to pay for reporters, editors, producers, and photographers but that's not the case for many sites that do great journalism.

Touche3• 11 years ago

Bytes are distributed over the public internet. He/she has a right to ignore the bytes he/she doesn't care about.

anc843• 11 years ago

The good old "there can not be free-of-cost content unless money is involved" fallacy.

I am a member of many communities whose hosting costs are paid by the communities, the administrative tasks are shared by members of the communities, I "consume" many sites which only exist because their authors want to express themselves, I use sites that exist because people feel the need to share their knowledge and collections of bytes. They all exist without a single ad. They exist because someone wants them to exist.

This comment was written and shared for free on the web without restrictions because I felt the urge to write it.

coldpie3• 11 years ago

I host a half-dozen websites out of my own pocket with no ads. I pay for an Ars Technica subscription and don't view ads. Hacker News doesn't have ads, yet here we are. Wikipedia doesn't have ads.

I guess the world we live in is pretty magical!

davidgerard• 11 years ago

about: Newsroom developer

Ads from newspapers are one of the biggest vectors for malwared ads, because they have so many viewers. You're a very efficacious channel for the malicious. Because newspapers have proven incompetent at not endangering their readers.

If you have an exciting new method of not malwaring your readers, that hasn't occurred to every newspaper that's malwared their readers so far, we'd love to see it in action! Until then, you really can't expect readers to just assume your competence in the face of overwhelming evidence.

Possibly you need to explore business models that don't risk malwaring your readers.

neoeldex• 11 years ago

Just switched over, but I'm wondering what you mean by blocking DOM? are you using lynx? CSS visited links are not able to be checked using javascript, so why are you blocking this?

bcg12• 11 years ago

Are you sure?

Could someone add some invisible 'before: content()' (or however that works in CSS) inside of an a:visited rule, and then check the DOM via Javascript to see if that content is there?

I haven't tried this, but it seems like it should work unless there is something specifically blocking that

zeroDivisible• 11 years ago

I'm using UBlock as well and will never look back, but in relation to:

And, most importantly, they do not get in bed with the ad companies to arrange for acceptable ads.

Unless things changed, UBlock relies on some of the blocking lists coming from AdBlock so the sentence above might not be 100% true.

weirdentropy4• 11 years ago

In order for this to be true for Adblock Origin, there would have to be a toggle to allow acceptable ads. There is none. Even if their lists whitelisted sites, other lists would negate this.

I'm aggressive with regard to ad blocking and use I use the majority of UBO's adblock lists except for the foreign lists.

bad_user• 11 years ago

ABP's resource usage is not that dramatic. It had a huge problem on Firefox due to an unsolved bug, but Mozilla solved it and now ABP runs without issues. I use ABP precisely because it has the notion of acceptable ads.

I have a right to a clutter-free Internet that is not tracking me

This is where we disagree. No, you don't have such a right, not on other people's expense. What you do have is the right to not use services or products that don't follow your world view. You are free to choose and preferably vote with your wallet.

But you are not free to infringe on people's copyright. Do note that I'm purposely not using the word "stealing" because that's not the case here, but that doesn't mean that such actions don't harm other people or companies. And because of this mentality it's precisely why we can't have nice things.

Because you see, by using ad-blockers, we are not punishing the bad actors, we are not punishing the ones that sell people's activity to the highest bidder, we are not rewarding services like Vimeo which are asking for a monthly subscription, etc, etc. And this isn't just about ad-blocking. We can extend this talk to DRM just as easily. Besides a handful of exceptions, like Minecraft or Witcher, how do you like your DRM-enabled, free-to-play, pay-to-win, mindless counter games? Because I sure as hell am glad that I've outgrown this industry.

Case in point - Google has had Google Apps. For $5 per user per month, which is the price of 2 coffees, you get an ads-free Gmail experience and a contractual guarantee that they won't mine your data, your own domain so they can't lock you in, plus support which is actually good these days. And if you don't trust Google, you've got trustworthy alternatives, like FastMail. Out of the pool of people using ad-blockers and complaining about tracking, how many of them are paying for their personal email account, or for their cloud storage account? I bet that only a minority.

The MPAA and the RIAA have always made the argument that piracy leads to billions in losses. I personally don't agree with their judgement, because obviously, just because some shitty movie is pirated by somebody, that doesn't mean that in absence of piracy methods the pirate would have paid. But you know what - losses do happen, because when your eyeballs and your ears are focused on some shitty piece, it means you aren't focusing on something else and there are only 24 hours in the day (same problem the food industry has, a problem called "inelastic demand"). And so the britney spearses and the beyonces and the star wars movies in our society are winning anyways.

And I must say that I consider people attributing moral values or rights to their usage of ad-blockers to be hypocrites. You know, there's nothing wrong with our human nature that wants free stuff, but lets be honest with ourselves.

forgetsusername• 11 years ago

a problem called "inelastic demand"

Inelastic demand means that the demand for a product is insensitive to price changes (ie a steep demand curve). No idea how that relates to what you're talking about.

And I must say that I consider people attributing moral values or rights to their usage of ad-blockers to be hypocrites.

That's ironic.

Here's the deal: Anything that is open to me publicly through my browser is fair game. You don't get to control what I do over here as soon as that data enters my house. In the same way I watch TV, then get up and go to the bathroom, or read, or get food, when commercials come on. The cable companies don't get to tell me, "Hey, you have to WATCH the commercials."

If you are producing content and want to make money, take what you can get through ad support, or offer a subscription. If your content is worth it, people will buy it. Period. I have no sympathy for people who feel they have some sort of right to make money from website visits.

Dylan16807• 11 years ago

It's not copyright infringement to consume only part of something.

probablypat• 11 years ago

Really cool suite of tools there! Have you tried https://redmorph.com (shameless plug) ? It might help add to your arsenal of internet privacy tools or help you use less. Please let me know of any feedback you might have on it.

jakub_g• 11 years ago

Quick question: is there an equivalent of ABP's CTRL_SHIFT_V shortcut in UBlock origin that opens the list of all the HTTP requests done by the page so I can block them manually one by one? Last time I checked I could not find it.

sigmar• 11 years ago

Yes. If you turn on "advanced user" in the settings, you can open uBlock origin from the toolbar and look at "+domains connected"

realusername• 11 years ago

Just a small minor comment, it's not possible anymore to leak browser history with CSS visited links like before because you can only change the color of the links now and not read it with the code. You can still make a page saying "click on the red squares" but that's about it.

MagerValp• 11 years ago

I also switched from ABP to UBO, and I also feel that it does a better job out of the box and uses fewer resources, but it's a marked downturn in usability. Quickly blocking an element like an annoying gif is a breeze in ABP (with Element Hiding Helper), and also quickly seeing what's being blocked (CMD-Shift-V), or adding a custom rule. I have yet to figure out how to do any of those easily in UBO, and enabling advanced mode deliberately disables all mouseover help.

I'm close to switching back to ABP, but we'll see...

manigandham8• 11 years ago

"no acceptable ads" - this is where the situation doesn't work out. Content isn't free, you either pay directly or indirectly. Ads are perhaps the best, easiest and most efficient passive payment system there exists today.

Yes there are a lot of bad actors and general crap that has damaged the industry greatly but that doesn't mean the model itself is somehow broken.

Not sure this falls under "rights" either - you definitely have the ability to do it but not a moral or legal entitlement to it.

moomin• 11 years ago

That reminds me... installs uBlock Origin

bambax2• 11 years ago

Besides findability, what benefits does the Chrome Web Store provide to extension developers? Does Chrome prevent or somehow limit the functionality of extensions that aren't coming from the store?

(I developed a few Chrome extensions 5 years ago and used to distribute them "by hand" to users, but haven't much followed what has happened since).

ivank• 11 years ago

You can't install extensions "by hand" any more, unless you turn on developer mode. And then you see a nag screen every time you start Chrome. Unless you're on Linux.

https://www.chromium.org/developers/extensions-deployment-fa...

bambax2• 11 years ago

Thanks for the answer and the link; didn't know that (May 2015: it's recent...)

Surprised by the downvotes, wasn't the question legitimate? Or is it obvious and old news for anyone but me...?

dvh• 11 years ago

What my predecessor said plus it comes with userbase. I made some extensions, never told anyone, one year later, poof, 700 users.

alex_marchant• 11 years ago

Looks like someone from Google noticed and apologized https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/issues/880#issuecomment-15....

audessuscest• 11 years ago

Solution: Firefox

Aissen2• 11 years ago

Since it now requires extension signing they could decide to revoke any extension they decide. Of course the process is more open, but it's also a walled garden :-(

Aissen2• 11 years ago

This is resolved now. Thanks sowbug !

Still worried about these "goofs" from walled gardens… Most of the time there is simply no way out for small developers.

minionslave• 11 years ago

If it goes against Google business model, I could see why they'd wanna see the source code. Maybe to serve adds that can bypass the algorithms.

chillydawg• 11 years ago

It was just sorted out. It'll be in the store within minutes apparently.

johnhattan• 11 years ago

Update: "We apologize that the update was rejected due to an snag in the review system. The updated item will be available in the Chrome Web Store within 30 minutes."

danielbln• 11 years ago

Just got the extension update notification, seems like update 1.3.2 has been released. Nothing like a top HN post to grease the wheels.

theshrike79• 11 years ago

HN seems to be the official support channel for Google.

KJasper• 11 years ago

And it's resolved: "Dear Developer,

We apologize that the update was rejected due to an snag in the review system. The updated item will be available in the Chrome Web Store within 30 minutes."

amelius• 11 years ago

I think Hanlon's razor applies here:

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

webXL• 11 years ago

I wonder if there's a razor for benefitting publicity-wise when this misattribution is made.

issaria• 11 years ago

The update is accepted as well now. https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/issues/880#issuecomment-15...

wnevets• 11 years ago

Dear Developer,
We apologize that the update was rejected due to an snag >in the review system. The updated item will be available >in the Chrome Web Store within 30 minutes.
Thank you for your cooperation, Google Chrome Web Store team

so a non story?

Touche3• 11 years ago

That happened after this being at the top of HN.

server_bot• 11 years ago

I work at a young startup (redmorph.com) building a similar privacy extension, and we've run into the exact same problem multiple times. While I understand that Google has a large volume of code to review, even an automated analysis tool could split out a line number and filename to reduce the guesswork :P

I have to add my shameless pitch to this thread, and I hope that fellow builders/entrepreneurs/startup-ers will emphasize with the fight to get attention/users:

uBlock is a great tool but it doesn't offer any network-level services, so you're still exposing IP/geo-location and potentially content sent over HTTP (as opposed to HTTPS). My company, RedMorph, will soon offer in-extension encrypted (AES-256) proxy at the first paid tier (we need to charge to cover infrastructure cost, it's still in beta) but you can download our free tracker blocking extension in the meantime. It's designed with usability in mind, so the average user can "plug-and-play". We're especially interested in empowering non-technical parents and children.

I'll be adding uBlock to this comparison soon: https://redmorph.com/articles/proof-in-the-packet.html

Thanks for your time, I appreciate thoughts and feedback!

Ch_livecodingtv• 11 years ago

I think Google sometimes is vague when it comes to bans and take downs. There are times they don't give clear reason which part exactly of their rules and regulation was being violated. It then becomes a puzzle to solve otherwise it's a sad story for content owners.

An update to UBlock Origin was rejected by the Chrome Web Store

Related Stories