The article was misleading here. Zero people unexpectedly had content change as a result of this. The only way that could happen is if you edit an undocumented

The article was misleading here. Zero people unexpectedly had content change as a result of this. The only way that could happen is if you edit an undocumented config option. That is not what the controversy is about. It's about Firefox adding an addon with a name that sounded suspicious to many, and whose purpose was marketing-related and did not provide any functionality benefit to the user. Present or not, enabled or not, it didn't actually do anything without explicit user action. But that's not the point, for people whom this bothered.