Hacker News Reader

Comment by jefftk | Hacker News Reader

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?

View on HN

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.

Transferring it back from AdBlock to Chris Aljoudi? Or from Chris Aljoudi to Raymond Hill?

Did AdBlock immediately do anything that wasn't intended to be authorized by Chris? I meant the latter.

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...

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?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com