To be clear, the complaint is not about Manifest V2 vs. Manifest V3 (which is of course its own can of nonsense), but about Mozilla's review:

> Mozilla says that it has reviewed the extension and found violations. The following claims were made:

> The extension is not asking for consent for data collecting.

> The extension contains "minified, concatenated or otherwise machine-generated code".

> There is no privacy policy.

The article points out that all three points are false, and this, or—I'll go ahead and trust the author of an extension I rely on heavily—what the author says:

> In a follow-up, Hill criticized the "nonsensical and hostile review process" that put added burden on developers. Mozilla disabled all versions of the extension except for the very first one. It still flagged the extension for the very same reasons, but nevertheless decided to keep the outdated version up.

is what makes Mozilla the bad guy here. (It also says Mozilla restored the extension a few days later, which is better than doubling down but, of course, worse than not making the ridiculous error in the first place.)