You're not. You just have standards.

We need people with standards in this industry, because that's the only source we have of market signals that prevent the market from going full user-hostile.

That's needless drama. They will be rolling out the fix in a point release. Whatever way you use to update your browser will install that and get the fix. So the worst case is just going back to the old days where you'd have the issue until your distro issued a new package or you manually updated the browser version on Windows or OSX. What exactly would you expect that's not exactly what's happening?

That's the way it always works, isn't it? Security and convenience are opposing concerns.

The three goals of computer security are integrity, confidentiality and availability.

All three of those expand the usefulness of the system to the end user.

A configuration where Mozilla cannot push remote updates is neither more secure nor less secure. Mozilla is often under fire for not allowing a privacy conscious, minimal trust use case.

Clearly more eyes are good, but... In between “Wild West WebExtensions” and “Mozilla backdoors my Firefox and it gets used for nefarious purposes” and “delays in browser updates increase exploitation windows”, I know which threat models I’m buying.

Then, even if developers keys and computers are compromised, I would notice something is wrong.

* No, of course that I don't always do that. I even don't often do that. But I did do that in the past, and I'd like to have the option to do that.

Why even have an official channel, providing visibility and official oversight, if when it comes down to it, you're just gonna push remote code updates through the same side channel a potential hacker would use?

People are saying it's for convenience. OK, but then they have to understand that doing things in that fashion is a really bad look. And now your users are set up to believe that, at least some of the updates coming from the side channel are "trust"-able.