Was casually reading through Firefox release notes for version 115, and in "Changes" section there is an introduction of a new back-end feature that restricts extensions behavior
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.
This feature is obviously still under development, but it already forced people to look for fixes. This suggests the user-unfriendliness of this feature, which may be related to the goals that the infamous Web Integrity API is seeking: partly, controlling and limiting extensions, which are there for the community(!)
I, of course, understand that this update dates back to 4th of July 2023 - some time before this DRM-the-web thing exploded, but still it contradicts things that Mozilla stated in opposition of Google's plan to hijack [even more] the internet.
How long before the YouTube page will be too private, sensitive and important to allow uBlock Origin from running on it? Will Mozilla decide that youtube.com is "quarantined domain" or will it accept suggestions from its monopoly colleagues?
This ~~feature~~ bug can be fixed by going to about:config and setting "extensions.quarantinedDomains.enabled" to "False". For now.
Not trying to make a fuss and/or cause a hysteria, just pointing out that such a thing was introduced and slipped under the radar (haven't seen a discussion about this on the internet). Mozilla may have other intentions for it, but it doesn't look like something made truly "for the people, not for profit" as some of Mozilla's slogans state.
Will be happy to discuss.
EDIT: "uBlock" > "uBlock Origin"
I believe μBlock Origin is one of the add-ons that are actively monitored by Mozilla for security, which would make this automatically never apply to it. At least, it doesn't have the "This add-on is not actively monitored for security by Mozilla. Make sure you trust it before installing." warning that some add-ons have.
Comparing this to the web integrity API seems misinformed at best, and disingenuous at worse. It's not related either technologically or conceptually. I might agree that it could have some undesirable outcomes if they end up falling down the slippery slope, but this post does honestly sound like the hysteria you said you weren't trying to cause.
uBlock IS actively monitored by Mozilla, and YOU should actively monitor where this whole thing is going. That's what I will do. One day they might change how this feature works by limiting even the monitored add-ons. Why not? The technology is there! Why would one be so sure that Mozilla possesses the power of will to stay off the slippery slope? They are either introducing this to later make a weapon of it or they aren't. Are you Mozilla? If so, how can you assure me that I won't have to search for an alternative browser in the future? I'm not boycotting Mozilla, nor dissing them. I'm pointing out what needs to be pointed out in order to give it enough attention, just in case.
Stay skeptical, everybody. Fair, but skeptical.
Read where you said "Not trying to make a fuss and/or cause a hysteria", then reread the message you just sent me.
I apologize. I might have been a little theatrical. If I could send you an audio comment, I would, because then you'd hear my calm and reasoning voice telling you that they may or may not do something bad and/or stupid with it. I assume you wouldn't blindly trust such a big entity, and would rather doubt everything it says (without being too maniacal) and then compare it to its future actions. That's what I was inviting you to do - observe its future actions.
Thank you. I'd keep in mind that Mozilla is a nonprofit though - they don't have the same nefarious profit motives that other companies may have. Which is just another reason Firefox's continued survival is so important for the internet.
The Mozilla Corporation makes Firefox and is not a non-profit.
Technically true but it's kind of a weird situation - they're owned by the Mozilla Foundation which is nonprofit. I'll yield on this point anyways.
I would definitely prefer relying on a non-profit than on a for-profit company, but still wouldn't trust them 100%. I may very well be sick, but, for what I see it, it is some sane skepticism.
If they wanted to do it, there is nothing stopping them at any point. The slope doesn’t have to be slippery.
I understand. But if you cannot see the slope of others, how can you be sure?