They have a knowledgebase article explaining why …

… that doesn’t explain why. Yes it explains the technical mechanism by which extensions can be blocked, but no explanation why this feature is even there. There’s just a sentence about “various reasons, including security considerations.”

I think it would help if they explained some of those “various reasons”, maybe with an example. Then I might even agree that those are situations where that might improve the user experience. Or the security.

But I would absolutely demand a transparent process for how, why and by who these decisions get made. And possibly a way to enable the extension regardless - you open a page, an extension is blocked, you get a notification explaining why and giving you an override option.

Part of me wants to believe that this is just very poorly communicated. Mozilla has been doing this for a while, for example extensions don’t work on addons.mozilla.org or any of the about: pages. And that seems reasonable to me. But I also don’t like the thought of mozilla policing what a user is or isn’t allowed to do.

Of all genz slang, i hate the word “stan” the most

It is a bit concerning if Mozilla Corporation (which is ultimately supposed to serve the goals of its shareholder Mozilla Foundation) are trying to develop things which are not exploitable security bugs behind closed doors. The reason for Bugzilla supporting confidential bugs is so 0-days aren’t available for anyone to browse, and that justification doesn’t seem to exist in this case.

Yeah this is problematic for open source software. Plenty of better ways to implement a security feature. Seems they will probably end up blocking adblockers eventually with features like this. Why was it approved, surely there is some discussion on the Dev mailing lists?