Doesn't seem very high up their list of priorities, seeing as how their desktop extensions - including the "Recommended" ones - are allowed to break all the rules.

A surprising amount of them comes with unlisted and uncontrollable connections to snooping services like Google Analytics or Sentry, I've seen unexpected redirects / tab hijacks - mostly to advertise the developer's new other extension, even fetching and executing external scripts and other resources from various CDNs is not uncommon... essentially everything their extension policies disallow.

All these violations are hardcoded into the extensions' source and rather easily scanned for automatically mind you, it almost takes more effort to not notice them.

I've stopped reporting the ones I encountered, they were never taken down and all the violations remained in every next version that I checked.

Here are some examples anyone can download to verify I'm not talking out of my arse:

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/giphy-for-fir...

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/tabliss/

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-subsc...

To get the source as its distributed to the browser you click "See all versions" in the "More information" panel on the left hand side of the extension page, then right click the "Add to Firefox" button and save to disk (don't left click the button if you're using FF or the extension will auto-install!), and then just unpack the XPI archive.

Don't forget to send in those abuse reports, maybe that'll finally get Mozilla to look at them.

Bonus link: https://extensionworkshop.com/documentation/publish/add-on-p...

my data is on my computer which has also access to my phone because they are connected

Sure but give them a choice. I don't want to be 'protected' from myself.

And the people that do, probably aren't running firefox for android

The we need a nanny argument really irks me in all it's forms. I appreciate guardrails, not a straightjacket.

Going down the path to eventually having no users is an interesting way to accomplish that.

But really, no, they don't. Put up enough disclaimers (this is the secret to compromising with security teams on usability) and let me do what I want at my own risk.

If I protect you by taking away your house keys so you can't have them stolen and abused, does that make me a good person? Is it a good reason to begin with?

That's what Apple would do, and in a lesser measure, Google.

Walled gardens have value for the user, Apple made tons of money and happy customers doing this.

But Mozilla is neither Apple nor Google, and Firefox is supposed to be an alternative to Chrome, in fact that's what annoys me the most with Firefox since last years: they copy Chrome for many things, but they don't have the means of Google, so it almost guarantees their position as a second choice. They did great things with Quantum, but they also lost most of their identity.

It is great that they support some extensions on their mobile version (uBlock Origin alone makes it worth it), but the wall garden approach is, I think, too much like what they are competing against. They could give the user an option.

Yeah if FF just becomes Chrome I might as well switch to the original.

I think Mozilla just has to bite the bullet and accept that they'll never be a mainstream browser (the majority of internet users don't even use ad blockers). The public is staying with Google and Apple.

Then don't use addons.