Bummer

Aren’t you?

What is the perceived problem, then?

Make sure to read this thoroughly this time.

[…]it’s almost always a manufactured limitation.

Doesn’t that sound like a good description of a problem?

I think I’ve only ever encountered a single website that didn’t actually technically work on Firefox[…]

There’s gonna be a hell of a lot more of them, buddy. You’re gonna have to hang your cat on your balcony to get an estimate of future weather if you want to avoid using one of them how-are-these-even browsers.

Imagine yourself as a homosexual man in Iran (should be easy). Would you say that hiding that big part of you from everyone and even go as far as marrying a woman you don’t even like just not to arouse suspicion makes the problem disappear? Just the fact that you need to spoof your useragent to view a shitty website, the developer of which would (should) die under a car one day 🤞, is a solid proof that you will soon be that homosexual man in Iran.

Doesn’t solve the problem tho, which makes editing the useragent nothing but a temporary solution not worth being smartass-megamind about

Guilty. Although I sometimes give myself a wake-up slap.

No. I have never witnessed Mozilla being evil. But there is first time for everything, right? They must be, maybe not entirely good - no such thing - but less evil than many other entities out there. Just trying to be cautious.

I understand. But if you cannot see the slope of others, how can you be sure?

I understand. Just saw some similarities and thought of the worst. I repeat: I trust Mozilla (non-profit) muuuuuch more than I trust Google (for-profit), for example, but still not enough to exclude doubt. I personally like this quality in me, but I can see how, sometimes, it may lead to a misunderstanding like this post right here. Just wanted to have some external opinion on this, and make people who didn’t notice it notice it.

I would definitely prefer relying on a non-profit than on a for-profit company, but still wouldn’t trust them 100%. I may very well be sick, but, for what I see it, it is some sane skepticism.

Been writing these from Librewolf all along. I am in no way against progress. Instead, I am simply taking it like handles of a pot on a stove - not sure if it’s red hot or pleasantly warm. I am indescribably glad that extensions will no longer, knowingly or unknowingly, watch porn with me, but you can’t ignore the fact that, sometimes, things introduced, as awesome as they may seem, may not be used how God intended them. I’m sure Mozilla have all the best intentions regarding this, but, as I wouldn’t trust a stranger with a pocket knife (a tool that can be used as a weapon), I won’t trust Mozilla not to abuse this feature. I apologize once again for being hyperbolic and theatrical in my original post - that’s just how I write. I’ve been using Firefox, including forks, since forever and won’t abandon them just for a suspicion. As I said, I will be watching this thing grow hoping that this suspicion of mine will remain just that.

I apologize. I might have been a little theatrical. If I could send you an audio comment, I would, because then you’d hear my calm and reasoning voice telling you that they may or may not do something bad and/or stupid with it. I assume you wouldn’t blindly trust such a big entity, and would rather doubt everything it says (without being too maniacal) and then compare it to its future actions. That’s what I was inviting you to do - observe its future actions.

uBlock IS actively monitored by Mozilla, and YOU should actively monitor where this whole thing is going. That’s what I will do. One day they might change how this feature works by limiting even the monitored add-ons. Why not? The technology is there! Why would one be so sure that Mozilla possesses the power of will to stay off the slippery slope? They are either introducing this to later make a weapon of it or they aren’t. Are you Mozilla? If so, how can you assure me that I won’t have to search for an alternative browser in the future? I’m not boycotting Mozilla, nor dissing them. I’m pointing out what needs to be pointed out in order to give it enough attention, just in case.

Stay skeptical, everybody. Fair, but skeptical.

Yes. It makes sense to limit everything except thing required to interact with such sites when accessing them, but, as history tells us, not everything served as higher purpose will remain noble and harmless. It definitely has potential to be used against users in the future. Will it? It is very much in line with what Web Integrity API proposed as a “solution”.

EDIT: added the last sentence.