Mozilla Add-on Store admins review each and every version of recommended extensions manually to ensure that they are 100 % safe by reviewing the source code that we submit.

Quote from Mozilla Recommended extensions page: "These chosen extensions undergo intense scrutiny in the form of manual security reviews. They're examined from every angle to ensure they meet our strict policies, leaving no room for compromise."

Since Feedbro is also available on Google and Edge add-on stores, their admins have reviewed the extension as well ensuring that it's completely safe. As stated, we do not gather any data about users or send anything to servers on the internet.

If you don't have faith in Mozilla Add-on Store reviewers, fine, but please don't spread FUD or make demands.

We don't do anything with your data. Please read the privacy policy. The source code of every Feedbro version is manually reviewed by Mozilla Add-on Store admins.

That sounds like an issue with the feed content and its html markup. Feedbro doesn't inherently have any code that would define how "buttons/image links for starting podcasts" work. Please contact the feed provider to notify them that there's an issue.

1. Twitter doesn't provide feeds
2. Our custom integration that enables feeds relies on Twitter APIs which Twitter has changed recently drastically basically blocking unauthenticated access.
3. The most recent Feedbro 4.15.9 should support Twitter profile feeds again (but searches don't work since Twitter requires logged on user for that)

Thank you for understanding.

This is explained in our privacy policy:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-GB/firefox/addon/feedbroreader/privacy/

Without that permission the WebExtension cannot access any URLs. Please reconsider your 1* rating.

PS. Since Feedbro is a Mozilla recommended extension, source code of EVERY release is manually reviewed to ensure it's 100% safe.

Without the feed URL it's a bit hard to troubleshoot this but Feedbro 4.5.0 now properly handles XML feeds that are in "oldest first" order which might have caused this in certain situations.

Edit (2020-07-29): another thing we noticed (and is fixed in 4.5.1 which is soon available) is that Firefox has a bug in Date object parsing when the year is expressed with just two digits. For example this string "Mon, 31 Aug 20 13:00:28 +0200" was parsed by Firefox JavaScript Date object as Wed Aug 20 2031 14:00:28 GMT+0300. This worked fine on Chromium-based browsers which made it hard to spot. This is also a likely reason for those skipped articles.

Of course, it would be have been a lot quicker to track down with a feed URL to test with. So for everyone else as well: if you think there's a bug somewhere, please include a feed URL that we can test it with.