4 ms·

That.. is upsetting. Mozilla seems to be determined to ensure that the user base it does have left leave it. I am glad it can be toggled off, but why exactly is

That.. is upsetting. Mozilla seems to be determined to ensure that the user base it does have left leave it. I am glad it can be toggled off, but why exactly is there to begin with is the real question.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
simlevesque 3y ago
> why exactly is there to begin with is the real question And "it's confidential" is the worst possible answer but it's still the one they gave us.
itzworm 3y ago
The commentor you've replied to says: > The best faith interpretation I can come up with, is in fact for security purposes. It creates restrictions on (at least from Mozilla’s perspective) untrusted extensions. I mean how many extensions are there that do act maliciously? It probably isn’t trivial. My best interpretation of that is it allows organizations to more easily allow some extensions while disallowing others.
- kemotep 3y ago
  Firefox is lagging behind on enterprise configuration options. Adding in additional features that allow sysadmins to deploy policies that can further control Firefox like Chrome and Edge could be potentially behind why this is happening. This is of course, complete speculation and if it was for enterprise management reasons, Mozilla should have clearly communicated it.
indymike 3y ago
The ability to prevent an extension from accessing specific sites is an improvement as long as the user can control it and it is not used for centralized access control. The reason this feature is there is that many extensions play poorly with or should not have access at all to specific sites. For example, Grammarly has no business accessing a corporate billing system and IT might want to disable access. In other cases an extension slows a site massively and a user might want to say, "not that site" to an extension. This could be the start of a big end-user improvement, especially if it can be managed by users and installers.
- ilyt 3y ago
  This as a feature attached to their containers would be pretty spiffy tbh. But as you said, if it was entirely user-controlled.
- t00 3y ago
  If that was the case, the feature should have been moved to site settings and labelled "Disable extensions on this site" or even better "Allow only specific extensions to run on this site".

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

simlevesque 3y ago

> why exactly is there to begin with is the real question And "it's confidential" is the worst possible answer but it's still the one they gave us.

itzworm 3y ago

The commentor you've replied to says: > The best faith interpretation I can come up with, is in fact for security purposes. It creates restrictions on (at least from Mozilla’s perspective) untrusted extensions. I mean how many extensions are there that do act maliciously? It probably isn’t trivial. My best interpretation of that is it allows organizations to more easily allow some extensions while disallowing others.

kemotep 3y ago
Firefox is lagging behind on enterprise configuration options. Adding in additional features that allow sysadmins to deploy policies that can further control Firefox like Chrome and Edge could be potentially behind why this is happening. This is of course, complete speculation and if it was for enterprise management reasons, Mozilla should have clearly communicated it.

indymike 3y ago

The ability to prevent an extension from accessing specific sites is an improvement as long as the user can control it and it is not used for centralized access control. The reason this feature is there is that many extensions play poorly with or should not have access at all to specific sites. For example, Grammarly has no business accessing a corporate billing system and IT might want to disable access. In other cases an extension slows a site massively and a user might want to say, "not that site" to an extension. This could be the start of a big end-user improvement, especially if it can be managed by users and installers.

ilyt 3y ago
This as a feature attached to their containers would be pretty spiffy tbh. But as you said, if it was entirely user-controlled.
t00 3y ago
If that was the case, the feature should have been moved to site settings and labelled "Disable extensions on this site" or even better "Allow only specific extensions to run on this site".