Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by jefftk 2137 days ago
It's complicated: uBlock is the original extension, and uBlock Origin is a fork by the original lead developer.

At this point, uBlock is sketchy while uBlock Origin is well respected, but it seems hard to come up with a rule that would justify banning uBlock?
2 comments
Dylan16807 2137 days ago
Google doesn't have to allow all transfers of extensions between different groups. The behavior of the new owner could have justified transferring it back.
link
jefftk 2137 days ago
Transferring it back from AdBlock to Chris Aljoudi? Or from Chris Aljoudi to Raymond Hill?
link
Dylan16807 2136 days ago
Did AdBlock immediately do anything that wasn't intended to be authorized by Chris? I meant the latter.
link
jefftk 2136 days ago
As far as I can tell, Chris didn't immediately do anything that would have justified transferring it back either. Raymond was sick of dealing with low quality support requests, and so transferred the project to Chris. Over time, Raymond didn't like the direction Chris was taking the project, however, and started recommending his uBlock Origin fork for general consumption.

More context on how things were around the time of the initial transfer: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/issues/38#issuecomment-918...

link
jneplokh 2137 days ago
Oh, never knew. Learn something everyday!

Regarding the question, I do not know either. I guess a lot of it falls on the user, and not much can be done about that.

Perhaps something like Mozilla's recommended extensions program (Apple already has to approve apps, so vetting is applied to Safari extensions, too) could be applied to the Chrome Web Store?

link