Firefox 115: some add-ons may be blocked from running on certain sites 😮

Why…be so worked about about this. I’m sticking with the :fox_face:

1 Like

Absolutely not! :exploding_head:

In case it’s not obvious - there’s no vitriol at all, we here all love ricklinux, but have to laugh because he self-memed his love for certain things and it became a forum brand, seriously ask him sometimes about any of those subjects :rofl:

I think we have collectively established more than a clue using 1st principles, and even done source code investigation…If we’re keeping it serious, what is not clear and tinfoil in what’s going on with that addition?


True, include me in that statement too :purple_heart:

1 Like

Vitriol on the technical subject, not against ricklinux. But I don’t get that link either, if that is a known injoke I’m not aware of then mea culpa.

The source code investigation only describes how it is implemented. Nobody has explained why someone would deem it necessary and what the consequences are. Nobody made any argument for or against having any inside knowledge about what an extension with unlimited access can achieve in Firefox on domains Mozilla considers problematic.

Not only that, everybody using FF was happily browsing with an already established local blocklist in place for months.


Nothing gets past the :fox_face:


Edit: This is the fox domain…nothing else is getting in!

Edit2: In other words … get out of the den!

I also think that this topic: French governement wants to inject domain blocking lists directly into web browsers put us on alert mode :smile:

1 Like

It looks to me like Mozilla wants to set the ground for helping their Goolag masters get that juicy ad revenue.

They really need it. At this point, at YouTube headquarters, a team of highly trained monkeys is searching every couch and sofa for loose change.


If none of these companies can make money without ad revenue then that tells you something. :sunglasses:

People complaining about ads also don’t want to pay hard money for a subscription? :sunglasses:

Paying for YouTube or any other entertainment media feels dirty to me, like paying for sex.


Well, some of us are attractive enough to get it for free - sometimes. But generally for a grab whatever you desire buffet it is probably acceptable that some compensation is in order.

Some subscriptions come with too many options. :laughing:

Been married for 40 years and still paying for it.


If by that you mean that one should seed all the torrents one downloads until the ratio is at least 2, then yes, I agree.

Firefox tells you it is “for security”, what more do you want?!
Stop being so suspicious! :rofl:

By reading some random Mozilla stuff from bug-reports today, on that subject, it’s apparent that it will be sold to public as something like “it helps to prevent fake MetaMask crypto-wallet add-ons to communicate with stocks websites”, something like that i’ve seen as one example.

But i say it’s a bunch of :ox: :poop: reason to dig such obvious hole.

Because what we know for a fact are the most important parts:

  1. It’s a mechanism to block extensions that Mozilla deemed untrustworthy (like @dalto wisely mentioned, some of those extensions we use as privacy measures here - so it’s already raising eyebrows), which also means any extension can become untrustworthy.

  2. By default it’s enabled for all users, and for now we have ability to turn it off.

  3. It does so almost completely silently, with very small dot near given extension and just loads such webpage.

  4. Quarantined domains list can be changed remotely at any time by Mozilla.

Can such mechanism be abused?

Will it be abused?
I argue - certainly, otherwise it wouldn’t logically exist at all, because potential for abuse (adblockers + Goolag) is much more severe and financially incentivized by people that back Mozilla the most (Goolag), than benefit for some edge cases for some clueless normie not being able to navigate the internet and installing random shady extensions that can steal credentials or compromise tab privacy.

There are plenty of things not to like about some Firefox decisions, but that tops my personal list, because it will affects all users that has no clue about it’s existence and will do so silently.


Anything that can be abused, will get abused. That’s just the nature of the reality we’re stuck in.

In this case, I doubt we are even talking about abuse, as the word implies that that is not the intended use case. It looks pretty intentional to me…

Sure. People should work for free. Paying people is bad. Sex work, working in the movies, whatever. Just a “different mindset”. It’s gonna be fine.

The Fox knows best! When the security of the den is compromised by visiting extensions they will and they must take measures to block those entering the domain. :laughing:

“When you give another person the power to define you.
You also give them the power to control you”.

Only time will tell.


So we should abandon FF?
What’s a proper alternative then? Chrome or Edge?

Or burn this laptop altogether, would be my second bonfire. :joy:

1 Like