• macniel@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Silently, but with a huuuuge Banner that notifies you that the extensions were disabled; not really silent then?

    • foobar@lemmy.villa-straylight.socialOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      You would have to be looking for it:

      Note that the warning appears in the Extensions popup rather than on the Extensions icon, so you wouldn’t know that StopTheMadness was disabled on YouTube unless you opened the popup (or unless you saw the autoplaying videos on YouTube that StopTheMadness would otherwise stop.)

      What happens, though, if you pin the extensions to the toolbar for easy access to their settings?

      It turns out that when you pin an extension to the toolbar, it no longer appears in the Extensions popup! Consequently, the quarantined domains warning no longer appears in the Extensions popup either. In fact, there’s no longer an Extensions popup: clicking the Extensions toolbar icon simply opens the about:addons page, which doesn’t show the quarantined domains warning anywhere.

  • fubo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s unclear exactly what’s going on here. It could be a good idea or a bad idea.

    Good idea: When accessing the login page for an important service, the user should be warned before low-trust extensions are enabled, to reduce the chance of hostile extensions stealing user credentials.

    Bad idea: Allowing web site operators to dictate what extensions users may use on those sites.

  • zosu@vlemmy.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    i could imagine putting a banking site on that list to make sure no banking data can be leaked to an extension. two edged sword tho

  • qwop@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I wish I could have extensions default to off and be able to turn them on selectively on sites. For things like darkreader I don’t want to use it 90% of the time so it shouldn’t need to have at access to site data.

    By the way, I don’t like the title of this article, how is it done “remotely”, it’s just a list in about:config, no? Sounds clickbaity.

    • AnyOldName3@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Most people leave those settings alone. If you’ve never changed the value, whenever Mozilla change the default, you’ll be updated to the new default when you update your browser. That’s a remote change to which websites remain unaffected by extensions, except for the minority of users who’ve done something about it.

  • rookie@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    This does feel like something you should be able to toggle off. I can understand their security concerns, but I didn’t switch to Firefox because I wanted less control/trust from my browser.

  • jet@hackertalks.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Yet another reason to use mullvad-browser instead of vanilla Firefox.

    Removing user agency is a big deal, to do it silently is a massive red flag. Even if the intentions are good paternalistic behavior removes agency from users.

  • db2@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    fiReFox iS So much BEtTer tHan ChrOme foR PrivACY