By: oiaohm
In reply to <a href="https://www.osnews.com/story/139928/under-pressure-from-russian-censors-mozilla-removes-anti-censorship-extensions/#comment-10440603">Alfman</a>.
No link you pointed to yourself.
https://devdoc.net/web/developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/Distribution.html
Mozilla does not do regional.
That ru thanks page serves up
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/all/#product-desktop-release
Like everywhere else.
https://download.mozilla.org/?product=firefox-latest-ssl&os=linux64&lang=en-US
Yes another name for the firefox default release is firefox-latest-ssl .
I do question if some countries the hello page should be straight up offering the ESR version.
By: oiaohm
In reply to <a href="https://www.osnews.com/story/139928/under-pressure-from-russian-censors-mozilla-removes-anti-censorship-extensions/#comment-10440560">FlyingJester</a>.
Alfman
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/download/thanks/
Then bottom of that page. is this link
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/all/#product-desktop-release
Then you can in the drop down box choose ESR
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/all/#product-desktop-esr
Then you can download Firefox ESR from Mozilla. The ESR version is also in the apt provided my mozilla again you have to know it there to install it.
Alfman ESR version of firefox is on the Mozilla website its not in the simplest to find place.
You have ESR from debian and other distributions that have some alterations and you have ESR from Mozilla being ESR equals can side load .
Mozilla provides versions you can side load then hides them.
By: sukru
In reply to <a href="https://www.osnews.com/story/139928/under-pressure-from-russian-censors-mozilla-removes-anti-censorship-extensions/#comment-10440566">Alfman</a>.
Alfman,
At this point, someone would probably start maintaining a fork of "Firefox (minus) Shenanigans". The issue is of course finding a reputable for such a task.
By: ??????????,Mozilla?????????????? - ?????
[…] ???? […]
By: Exclusive: Mozilla reverses course, re-lists extensions it removed in Russia – OSAlert
[…] days ago, I broke the news that Mozilla removed several Firefox extensions from the add-on store in Russia, after pressure from Russian censors. Mozilla provided me with an official statement, which seemed […]
By: sukru
In reply to <a href="https://www.osnews.com/story/139928/under-pressure-from-russian-censors-mozilla-removes-anti-censorship-extensions/#comment-10440585">kurkosdr</a>.
kurkosdr,
That is fair, but it shows the other extreme of everything being as secure and private as possible.
I have not used either of them, but Thorium or Mercury could maybe be an alternative (Chromium and Firefox forks)
https://thorium.rocks/
https://thorium.rocks/mercury
By: Alfman
In reply to <a href="https://www.osnews.com/story/139928/under-pressure-from-russian-censors-mozilla-removes-anti-censorship-extensions/#comment-10440601">BluenoseJake</a>.
BluenoseJake,
<blockquote>I don’t think that’s entirely true. Mozilla hasn’t take away Russian’s ability to use these extensions, they have “temporarily” stopped providing hosting services for them. If they have another way of getting these extensions, they can still use them.</blockquote>
Do you know if the addons are still going to be signed by mozilla? I don't actually know the answer myself, so if you have any news on this I'd appreciate a link.
If mozilla revoke their signature, then would be taking away the ability to use the extensions (in the normal end user version of FF).
Unsurprisingly there is a Russian version of FF here... so another question I have is whether mozilla signatures are implemented regionally.
https://www.mozilla.org/ru/firefox/download/thanks/
Does anyone know? (Preferable with a source).
By: BluenoseJake
In reply to <a href="https://www.osnews.com/story/139928/under-pressure-from-russian-censors-mozilla-removes-anti-censorship-extensions/#comment-10440549">Alfman</a>.
I don't think that's entirely true. Mozilla hasn't take away Russian's ability to use these extensions, they have "temporarily" stopped providing hosting services for them. If they have another way of getting these extensions, they can still use them. You can install them manually in the gui. They have not taken any keys from any owners. Is it a crappy situation and do i wish Mozilla hadn't restricted access to those extensions from the store? Sure is, and yes i do. but they have not taken anyone's control of their browser away.
By: kallisti5
In reply to <a href="https://www.osnews.com/story/139928/under-pressure-from-russian-censors-mozilla-removes-anti-censorship-extensions/#comment-10440599">kallisti5</a>.
With the above said, I draw a line at Tor. The people need empowered to communicate externally uncensored. Tor should be available to every school child.
By: kallisti5
In reply to <a href="https://www.osnews.com/story/139928/under-pressure-from-russian-censors-mozilla-removes-anti-censorship-extensions/#comment-10440594">ppp</a>.
Yup. It's a shitty situation all the way down. Mozilla may want to be the hero and tell Russia to pound sand, but they would be doing it at the peril of their own Russian contributors whom may not want to be a martyr for them.
I think the only real solution is to back away, and hope the lack of the plugin adds fuel to the overall dissatisfaction of the Russian people towards their dictator.
By: Alfman
In reply to <a href="https://www.osnews.com/story/139928/under-pressure-from-russian-censors-mozilla-removes-anti-censorship-extensions/#comment-10440596">Alfman</a>.
Edit: But companies->Both companies
By: Alfman
In reply to <a href="https://www.osnews.com/story/139928/under-pressure-from-russian-censors-mozilla-removes-anti-censorship-extensions/#comment-10440584">kallisti5</a>.
kallisti5,
<blockquote>Lots of keyboard warriors here. Firefox is in a weird position.. continue to offer the extension and risk the health and safety of contributors in Russia while getting Firefox banned, or don’t offer the extension in Russia and force users in Russia to side-load the extension (reducing its availability to common folks)
Honestly, I feel like Firefox made the right call. All options suck, but putting Firefox contributors in Russia at a potential direct risk feels inappropriate.</blockquote>
I agree with the gist of what you are saying here, but how did you miss that whole long thread talking about the other option mozilla has? Haha. Seriously the narrative that mozilla doesn't have a choice is the same narrative apple uses when it comes to app store censorship but this narrative is flat out wrong. But companies are complicit in building the technology to restrict users in the first place. They weren't coerced into restricting end users at all and neither of them deserve a moral pass here.
By: Alfman
In reply to <a href="https://www.osnews.com/story/139928/under-pressure-from-russian-censors-mozilla-removes-anti-censorship-extensions/#comment-10440560">FlyingJester</a>.
kurkosdr,
<blockquote>Getting the thread back on track for a moment: Does regular Firefox (Windows or MacOS build downloaded directly from Mozilla’s website, non-ESR, non-nightly) require add-ons to be signed?</blockquote>
Edit: I forgot to answer your question. The answer is yes.
By: ppp
In reply to <a href="https://www.osnews.com/story/139928/under-pressure-from-russian-censors-mozilla-removes-anti-censorship-extensions/#comment-10440584">kallisti5</a>.
Ouch. Fair point. TBH it hadn't occurred to me how BS crazy the Russian system could be.
The "powers that be" could just round up anyone in Russia from this list https://www.mozilla.org/credits/ or in fact any of those folk that try to enter Russia or anyone who appears in the git log at Mozilla's GitHub repo or anyone listed in the FF/Moz repos... I mean, if you're a tyrant all these things or possible, even desirable.
By: Alfman
In reply to <a href="https://www.osnews.com/story/139928/under-pressure-from-russian-censors-mozilla-removes-anti-censorship-extensions/#comment-10440560">FlyingJester</a>.
kurkosdr,
<blockquote>Getting the thread back on track for a moment: Does regular Firefox (Windows or MacOS build downloaded directly from Mozilla’s website, non-ESR, non-nightly) require add-ons to be signed?
To be clear, I mean the build available from the following URL:
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/all/#product-desktop-release
(with “Which browser would you like to download?” set to “Firefox”)
Because let’s be real, that’s what most Firefox users will download.
* require add-ons to be signed = require add-ons to be signed before they can be sideloaded</blockquote>
I downloaded the browsers from the top of mozilla's page, which opens up this page, but I think it's the same download.
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/download/thanks/
Incidentally this is extremely easy to test on linux, you can extract it and run it in place. IMHO all software should be this easy to try :) I really miss this about old school software, our dependency on modern installers sucks. /off topic rant
By: kurkosdr
In reply to <a href="https://www.osnews.com/story/139928/under-pressure-from-russian-censors-mozilla-removes-anti-censorship-extensions/#comment-10440560">FlyingJester</a>.
* require add-ons to be signed = require add-ons to be signed before they can be sideloaded