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

[anon49550872]

Based on the sites included in the quarantine list and the extensions in the scope, I don’t see a problem too.
At this moment, so far, so good.
But my eyes are opened and I’m watching it closely where is this going.

[ricklinux]

Well there lots of things wrong with the many many other usesless browsers too!

Edit: Just saying …

[pebcak]

@ricklinux

Nothing wrong with Firefox.

Except Firefox is being totally in the wrong with this latest move and how it is implemented.

[ricklinux]

Not sure i agree totally.

[pebcak]

@ricklinux

Not sure i agree totally.

You don’t have to and I won’t expect you to do either!

For me, modifying the settings of my browser remotely and almost silently behind the scene is an intrusive action and not acceptable from a browser which markets itself as privacy respecting.

I think it is wrong!

[ricklinux]

I just think they are doing it to protect users.

[pebcak]

I don’t need that sort of paternalistic protection.

Instead, they should be open about the whole thing and inform users to learn to protect themselves.

What would be the next move. Mozilla, injecting blocklists into your browser, preventing you from visiting sites they deem are dangerous for you.

[ricklinux]

I don’t have an issue with it sorry.

Edit: Everything just works!

[pebcak]

Good for you!

I have and I am not sorry! Mozilla should be.

[GolDNenex]

I don’t want Firefox to die, because i hate chromium and the impact that google have on the web with it. Firefox is not perfect but its the only real “competitor”. Too bad Servo development was stopped.

[pebcak]

@Locutus

@dalto

OK, I see what is going on. extensions.quarantinedDomains.list is part of group of “Remote Settings”. These are settings that are controlled by Mozilla and fetched remotely. It seems like there are only three of them and this is one.

And another reason to pass on Firefox.

Do you have any alternatives on your mind apart from perhaps Librewolf?

[chikenf00t]

I know you weren’t talking to me, but I went down a rabbit hole and found some interesting stuff:
Obviously there’s the Mullvad Browser which would be my pick if I wasn’t using Librewolf
I also found the Pulse Browser, don’t know much about it but seems interesting
And now for two oddballs:
Floorp(what a name)
and it looks like this is still in development but the Dot Browser is being worked on

(I know this is probably way off topic, but I figure this might be useful to someone)

[pebcak]

Thanks, I appreciate your input!

Yes, I did try Mullvad for a short period of time right after the announcement of its release. I posted also about it here.

Mullvad Browser being TOR (without Onion routing) it comes tweaked for privacy out of the box so in that respect it is a worthy Firefox’ alternative. I do still have it in my system. I guess now its next release will based on FF 115 which is the new base for ESR.

I knew of Floorp as well but only curios to visit their site and not much more.

However, Pulse Browser was totally new to me. I will definitely keep an eye on it.

@chikenf00t

I know this is probably way off topic, but I figure this might be useful to someone

It is related to the topic the reason of it’s coming to be was concern for privacy that I think many of us share. Thanks again for pointing out these options!

[r0ckhopper]

@pebcak

I don’t need that sort of paternalistic protection.

Millions of others do.

@pebcak

they should be open about the whole thing

Their communication of this has been poor.

@pebcak

inform users to learn to protect themselves.

They do, but sadly too many users aren’t reading/listening

[LDC]

Mozilla is making huge efforts to disappear from the market and turn around loyal fans

[pebcak]

@r0ckhopper

@pebcak

I don’t need that sort of paternalistic protection.

Millions of others do

You mean that Mozilla is right about this, according to me, intrusive measures because they think millions of others needs “paternalistic protection”? How far do you think this “benevolence” should go in order to keep me from hurting myself.

They better concentrate their efforts on making a secure browser and let the users take care of themselves.

No amount of warnings and protections have ever prevented a child from burning himself, at least once to know what fire is.

@pebcak

@r0ckhopper

This feature allows us to prevent attacks by malicious actors targeting specific domains when we have reason to believe there may be malicious add-ons we have not yet discovered.

…

Beware of the Unknown Unknowns

Also, I find this wording appalling to say the least.

It is reminiscence of similar wording used by political entity X to invade the territory Y because of the Unknown Unknowns for making the world a safer place, for billions of “infantile” people. It makes me sick to the stomach.

[anon50380917]

It’s getting harder and harder to talk firefox up.

The main thing is that everything is woke (Masterpassword .g.).

[Schlaefer]

@pebcak

You mean that Mozilla is right about this, according to me, intrusive measures because they think millions of others needs “paternalistic protection”? How far do you think this “benevolence” should go in order to keep me from hurting myself.

They better concentrate their efforts on making a secure browser and let the users take care of themselves.

No amount of warnings and protections have ever prevented a child from burning himself, at least once to know what fire is.

How does that compute? These measures literally creating a more secure browser. And to demand that everybody should be a victim of online fraud to “learn their lesson” … I don’t even know where to begin how irresponsible that sounds.

[pebcak]

I respect your point of view but I don’t share it.

I find managing the settings of my browser remotely an intrusive measure for what ever reason.

If the “malicious addons” that Mozilla has “not yet discovered” but has “reason to believe” that they may target “specific domains” is what motivates Mozilla, i’ll pass on that.

[keybreak]

Mozilla