7 ms·

The answers here seem to suggest otherwise. https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2020/02/11/faq-for-extension-support-in-new-firefox-for-android/ https://blog.mozil

The answers here seem to suggest otherwise. https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2020/02/11/faq-for-extension-support-in-new-firefox-for-android/ https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2020/02/11/faq-for-extension... My guess would be that they'll try to make it curated-only unless users complain too much. Or maybe allow other extensions behind serious warning screens. If that ends up being the case, depending on their review process, it kinda sucks for any potential new extensions created after the ecosystem lockdown, that won't get a chance to attain enough popularity to be relevant - unless Mozilla agrees to do a review for any project that asks, which doesn't seem likely.

fwn 6y ago
Would also be bad for all extensions Mozilla does not allow in their extension store. All software stores can be pressured to remove content. Keeping the ability to load non-store extensions fixes that specific deplatfoming problem.
- realharo 6y ago
  The basic assumption is that users are dumb when it comes to security, and if there is a way to install malware, they will be tricked into installing malware (even with no vulnerabilities in the host software itself). Especially since there is such a thing as warning screen fatigue, which makes people not pay attention and just click through due to the sheer amount of benign(ish) warning screens they regularly deal with (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alarm_fatigue https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alarm_fatigue). Making them explicitly type out "YES I AM AWARE THIS EXTENSION COULD EASILY CONTAIN MALICIOUS CODE AND I TRUST THE SOURCE: " + the domain name, in all caps before proceeding could be enough to catch most cases (unless too much legit software gets forced behind such warnings, where it would lead to that fatigue problem again). Desktop Chrome doesn't let you have an outside extension without showing a warning on every single startup (even if it's an extension you are currently developing), but that could be because on a desktop OS, other applications could add such extension into Chrome without a user action. On mobile, where apps are isolated from one another, that problem doesn't exist, so maybe such strict restrictions shouldn't be necessary.
  - fwn 6y ago
    I don't think any of this is necessary. I know we often say "the user is dumb, therefore software should patronize them", but that really only goes so far. On hindsight it looks like a balancing act where single features are evaluated for their danger, etc. Then, at some point, there's no software left that allows users to achieve their goals, because "you wouldn't want to do that", "stupid people could accidentally use it", "your use case is too fringe to justify catering to it anymore", etc. We're pretty much at this point now regarding browsers on Android, where there's only Chrome and it's skins (that let you do nothing) and Firefox. I can't believe the sensible thing to do would be to cut uncurated, non-store extensions from Firefox as well. It would be a huge loss for the whole ecosystem just to make a few Firefox installs (from an already small install base) a tiny bit less compromisable.
    - realharo 6y ago
      >I know we often say "the user is dumb, therefore software should patronize them", but that really only goes so far. It's not just a saying, it's supported by real-world situations that actually happened, and that you can be pretty sure will happen again. That's the context for the decisions that platform owners have to make. E.g. not too long ago, Dark Reader users received this notice https://darkreader.org/blog/attention/ https://darkreader.org/blog/attention/ about malware clones of the real extension that apparently thousands of people had installed (from the stores). It is events like this that influence these decisions. >Then, at some point, there's no software left that allows users to achieve their goals, because "you wouldn't want to do that", "stupid people could accidentally use it", "your use case is too fringe to justify catering to it anymore", etc. That's basically the Apple mindset. It's a well known fact (e.g. his biography) that Steve Jobs didn't even want any third party apps (other than super limited web-"apps") on iOS initially, and had to be convinced otherwise.
      - fwn 6y ago
        But I didn't argue that they shouldn't do it because we don't know whether people will compromise themselves. I argued they shouldn't do it despite knowing that people will have the ability to compromise themselves.

fwn 6y ago

Would also be bad for all extensions Mozilla does not allow in their extension store. All software stores can be pressured to remove content. Keeping the ability to load non-store extensions fixes that specific deplatfoming problem.

realharo 6y ago
The basic assumption is that users are dumb when it comes to security, and if there is a way to install malware, they will be tricked into installing malware (even with no vulnerabilities in the host software itself). Especially since there is such a thing as warning screen fatigue, which makes people not pay attention and just click through due to the sheer amount of benign(ish) warning screens they regularly deal with (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alarm_fatigue https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alarm_fatigue). Making them explicitly type out "YES I AM AWARE THIS EXTENSION COULD EASILY CONTAIN MALICIOUS CODE AND I TRUST THE SOURCE: " + the domain name, in all caps before proceeding could be enough to catch most cases (unless too much legit software gets forced behind such warnings, where it would lead to that fatigue problem again). Desktop Chrome doesn't let you have an outside extension without showing a warning on every single startup (even if it's an extension you are currently developing), but that could be because on a desktop OS, other applications could add such extension into Chrome without a user action. On mobile, where apps are isolated from one another, that problem doesn't exist, so maybe such strict restrictions shouldn't be necessary.
- fwn 6y ago
  I don't think any of this is necessary. I know we often say "the user is dumb, therefore software should patronize them", but that really only goes so far. On hindsight it looks like a balancing act where single features are evaluated for their danger, etc. Then, at some point, there's no software left that allows users to achieve their goals, because "you wouldn't want to do that", "stupid people could accidentally use it", "your use case is too fringe to justify catering to it anymore", etc. We're pretty much at this point now regarding browsers on Android, where there's only Chrome and it's skins (that let you do nothing) and Firefox. I can't believe the sensible thing to do would be to cut uncurated, non-store extensions from Firefox as well. It would be a huge loss for the whole ecosystem just to make a few Firefox installs (from an already small install base) a tiny bit less compromisable.
  - realharo 6y ago
    >I know we often say "the user is dumb, therefore software should patronize them", but that really only goes so far. It's not just a saying, it's supported by real-world situations that actually happened, and that you can be pretty sure will happen again. That's the context for the decisions that platform owners have to make. E.g. not too long ago, Dark Reader users received this notice https://darkreader.org/blog/attention/ https://darkreader.org/blog/attention/ about malware clones of the real extension that apparently thousands of people had installed (from the stores). It is events like this that influence these decisions. >Then, at some point, there's no software left that allows users to achieve their goals, because "you wouldn't want to do that", "stupid people could accidentally use it", "your use case is too fringe to justify catering to it anymore", etc. That's basically the Apple mindset. It's a well known fact (e.g. his biography) that Steve Jobs didn't even want any third party apps (other than super limited web-"apps") on iOS initially, and had to be convinced otherwise.
    - fwn 6y ago
      But I didn't argue that they shouldn't do it because we don't know whether people will compromise themselves. I argued they shouldn't do it despite knowing that people will have the ability to compromise themselves.