The irony of your stats is that what's on the blocked list is out of the extension developers' hands. The government decides what gets blocked and so is fully in control of the % of sites that are easy targets or hard to defend. If they really want to block a handful of political sites, the lesson here is make sure to include a bunch of other sites so that any attempts at unblocking are hard to defend. Finally, it seems part of the problem here is that the blocking orders come from something of a regulatory agency, without any due process or appeal possibility (except maybe after the fact). The existence of such a tool puts a lot of power in the hands of unaccountable government officials apparently in coordination with private industry.

> It's really interesting to see this story presented this way and nobody here seems to have even bothered to try to find another perspective.

It's really interesting to see people serve as the unpaid PR department of huge corporations who have paid someone to make this unilateral decision, but don't allow any of the tens of thousands of employees to offer an explanation.

The decision to pull the extension was made by someone (there's no algorithm to take the blame here). And a decision was made to ignore the thousands of users asking for an explanation. So, yeah, I don't really understand standing up and defending that company.

Wonder if a Googler could use their 20% gig to offer real support to real users. Probably a fireable offense.