3 ms·

I'm happy to presume it wasn't your intent, but I thought I'd share that this reply comes across, to me at least, as pretty condescending and preachy.

• ygjb 3y ago
  Nah, it was meant as preachy, but not necessarily condescending. It's absolutely important to challenge Mozilla and other open source projects, especially in this era of enshittification[1]; Mozilla and Firefox operate in a position of trust on behalf of their users. That said, the parent post positioned this as an abomination of a feature, but acknowledged it makes sense as a user feature. The ability to disable add-ons by domain is a great feature for user control, but it's functionally useless on it's own as a mechanism to protect users. In order for that feature to actually protect users, you need a mechanism to turn it on and off remotely so that if a new threat is identified (or there is a serious regression in Firefox that makes specific extensions higher risk), that users don't need to act to do the right thing. This isn't a meaningful loss of user control, and I already said elsewhere that Mozilla should have communicated more about this new feature, but ultimately it's the right kind of feature. [1] https://pluralistic.net/tag/enshittification/ https://pluralistic.net/tag/enshittification/