IANAL but my perspective has been that the courts care more about your ability to control what runs on a "platform" than about who hosts what. So if Firefox in

IANAL but my perspective has been that the courts care more about your ability to control what runs on a "platform" than about who hosts what. So if Firefox in its default configuration will only run addons that Mozilla approves, then the courts might not care about where the addon is hosted or how users technically receive it, and could just order Mozilla not to sign the addon. My personal opinion is that curation is fine if users can opt-out of it. There is value in having someone certifying that the software you are installing is not malware, or even that it meets some threshold for quality (e.g. does not drain the battery), but users should have the ability to pick the curator or to have no curation at all. That said, it is a totally separate argument from whether or not the courts would care about how software is distributed, and totally separate from how the courts will view the role of a software curator (and whether or not courts will insist that curators refuse to certify software that does certain things, like blocking paywalls).