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

[anon49550872]

@ricklinux

Edit: It’s their software. They have a right to do with it what they feel is needed. It’s no different than EndeavourOS making changes to it’s ISO. Some may not like it and or the explanation. Distro’s do this all the time.

EndeavourOS is transparent when it comes to changes in their ISO.
Nothing is hidden, or vague.

See, they are saying that this is for our own security, where did you hear this before ?
Hm…

Also, we will soon know, just wait, they will probably start to include some websites in this quarantine list.

If I’m right about this, Youtube will be one of them, the timing really tells me something here.

Well, pihole, pfblockerng and others will be our only option for this kind of corporations aligning up their interests. Block at the router level.

[keybreak]

@anon49550872

Well, pihole, pfblockerng and others will be our only option for this kind of corporations aligning up their interests. Block at the router level.

Yep and that would be perfectly fine by them corpos, coz user nobody cares about couple of Linux nerds who are able to setup Pi-hole, compared to millions of normies…

Also, one can use source code of Firefox, modify it and compile yourself…and again demographic of that is not significant.

[anon49550872]

Indeed… If my observations are correct, they just want to show more ads and increase their revenue.
Only time will tell…

And yes, we linux users will probably be ignored

[pebcak]

@anon49550872

I wonder if this new “feature” is related somehow with Youtube testing ‘three strikes’ rule to block users with ad blockers.

[keybreak]

@anon49550872

And yes, we linux users will probably be ignored

[ricklinux]

@anon49550872

If my observations are correct, they just want to show more ads and increase their revenue.
Only time will tell…

I don’t think this is the case.

[ricklinux]

I guess you could share your thoughts here.

Mozilla Connect

[anon49550872]

@ricklinux

I don’t think this is the case.

Time will tell…

[ricklinux]

Well i still plan on using Firefox as i have always. It’s still the best browser all things considered for most users.

[dalto]

Here is the thing, I am also going to still use Firefox.

However, that doesn’t mean we should give them a pass and ignore troubling behavior just because we “like” this browser the best.

I don’t understand how any privacy minded person could look at this feature and think it is not a problem the way it is implemented. Especially since it is enabled by default.

[pebcak]

I wonder if this for-your-own-good “feature” will be inherited by Librewolf as well.

Or by the recently independent (again) Waterfox?

[anon49550872]

@ricklinux

Well i still plan on using Firefox as i have always. It’s still the best browser all things considered for most users.

That is totally up to you, nobody in this world should tell you what browser to use.

[ricklinux]

@dalto

However, that doesn’t mean we should give them a pass and ignore troubling behavior just because we “like” this browser the best.

I just don’t see this as troubling behaviour. We have no idea about the decisions made and why? It’s all speculation and fear mongering as far as I’m concerened. You can disagree with me. That’s your choice same as mine.

[pebcak]

@ricklinux

I just don’t see this as troubling behaviour.

It doesn’t surprise me.

@ricklinux

I’d rather see that some sites are blocked!

[ricklinux]

What sites are you going to anyway?

[pebcak]

I may DM it to you

[ricklinux]

Maybe i write to Mozilla and ask what the heck is up?

[dalto]

@ricklinux

I just don’t see this as troubling behaviour.

It may not apply to you personally but let me explain why this bothers others.

Many of us have extensions we use to keep us more secure and/or increase our privacy. Mozilla is disabling those extensions when certain sites are visited. That might be sort of OK, if they popped up a warning like “You are about to visit a site where you extensions will be disabled, do you want to proceed?”. But they don’t, they just disable the extensions and load the site without any obvious notification. At that point it is too late to do anything about it.

That is awful behavior.

@ricklinux

It’s all speculation and fear mongering as far as I’m concerened.

Speaking only for myself, it isn’t speculation or fear mongering. I literally took the time to read through the code to see exactly how it worked and then I tested it to see for myself what it did. What I am describing isn’t speculation, it is exactly what it did based on the code and my testing.

[ricklinux]

I see your point. Yes i can understand that. What i meant about speculation is we don’t really know why they are making these changes.

[pebcak]

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 concerns.
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/quarantined-domains

From this it is not even clear what those some extensions monitored by Mozilla are at this point.

Some is certainly not all.

What if Mozilla decide to disable uBlock (or some such) on some specific websites.

We are in the dark!