Simply hell the f no.
If by Mozilla non-monitored addons are the ones that get blocked, how could they tell that they are unsafe or insecure at the first place? Some may be, but how would Mozilla know?
More:
It seesm like not even all the by-Mozilla-monitored addons are allowed either.
Also, the question still remains what are those âspecific websitesâ on which these by Mozilla non-monitored addons will be disabled?
Whatever it is, I donât like it ⌠at all!
Iâm withholding judgement until I know what it is. (I always have a pitchfork & burning torch to hand anyway).
Perhaps they should step up and put in place a mechanism to get rid of the âbad applesâ already there.
If I have chosen to install a non-monitored addon and the browser let me do so, then I want it to run it wherever I want, taking the responsibility myself.
Anything, beyond perhaps a warning that I am running a non-monitored addon, is intrusive in my opinion.
Though, I agree with @dalto on:
The problem with that screenshot is that under Mozillaâs âregulationsâ all add-ons that are not ârecommendedâ have that same warning. Which is nearly all of them⌠Even add-ons that have been around longer than the recommended/verified programme, and that are still supported today.
In my opinion, they need to rethink the add-on store, if they want to use the new feature effectively in the same way they say it may work.
Iâd rather see that some sites are blocked! 
Just disabled itâŚ
// IPv6
user_pref("network.dns.disableIPv6", true);
// Extension monitoring Mozilla
user_pref("extensions.quarantinedDomains.enabled", false);
If the extension you want to use doesnât work then okay disable it. Otherwise it doesnât matter if the extensions your using work. Everyone may be using something different and some people have way too many extensions anyway and thatâs another issue.
I donât drink milk.
I think this setting in about:config is meant to disable risky add-ons listed on the website mentioned below.
extensions.blocklist.detailsURL https://blocked.cdn.mozilla.net/
ExactlyâŚ
Iâm sorry, Firefox thinks otherwise!!!
I wonder if this new âfeatureâ is related somehow with Youtube testing âthree strikesâ rule to block users with ad blockers.
The timing tells me somethingâŚ
Firefox users who run add-ons that are not monitored by Mozilla may notice a new notification in Firefox when they visit certain sites. The notification informs them that âsome extensions are not allowedâ and were blocked from running on that site.
Mozilla writes on a support page: âAs of Firefox version 115, we have introduced a new back-end feature to only allow some extensions monitored by Mozilla to run on specific websites for various reasons, including security concernsâ.
Mozilla makes no mention of the scope of this and the support article is extremely vague. The change is called Quarantined Domains by Mozilla.
Firefox users may undo the change in the following way:
- Load about:config in the Firefox address bar.
- Click Accept the Risk and Continue, if the prompt appears.
- Search for extensions.quarantinedDomains.enabled.
- Set it to FALSE.
- Restart Firefox.
Mozilla should consider publishing detailed information about the blocking in which it reveals all blocking rules.
I can read the 1st time, thereâs no need for repeating same stuff 
@dalto have shown how silent that ânotificationâ is, canât you see how this can be abused for something that Firefox decided for whatever reason doesnât fit their criteria of nice addon?
AdBlockers come to mind first obviously, for some friendly corporationsâŚEspecially considering Mozilla is funded mostly by Goolag these days.
Thatâs a very alarming move and a very bad defaults waiting to be abused, itâs just a bad mechanism overall, if we exclude power users who are able to revert this config settingâŚAt least until such config setting is there and it can easily disappear one day.
Mozilla makes no mention of the scope of this and the support article is extremely vague.
This is alarming as wellâŚsilence is not nice when it comes to questionable decisions.
I fixed it for you 
I think the whole alarming thing is overblown. Who sayâs itâs a questionable decision? Just because some people donât like it? 
Edit: Itâs their software. They have a right to do with it what they feel is needed. Itâs no different than EndeavourOS making changes to itâs ISO. Some may not like it and or the explanation. Distroâs do this all the time.
Iâll just be silent! 
