KarimAziev · July 13, 2025 14:24
diff --git a/firefox-frustration.txt b/firefox-frustration.txt
 I have to say - as the developer of such "insecure" extension (Chrome-Emacs), I'm baffled by this "insecure” label. Every time I update my add-on, I submit the full source code and detailed instructions, yet it seems that no one ever really looks at what I provide. It feels like my work is automatically dismissed, and I'm being penalized just because it didn't go through some manual review process I can't even influence.
 What exactly does "actively monitored” mean? If my extension were truly dangerous, this would be highlighted with concrete evidence or specific criteria. Instead, it simply gets tagged with a warning that nothing more is expected from me. It's hard not to feel brushed aside by a process that appears to rely more on automated checks than genuine security evaluations.

 I'm all for keeping users safe, but by lumping all non-"Recommended” extensions into the same category, it feels like you're ignoring the effort and transparency many developers like me put into our work. Clear guidance on how to move beyond this "caution” label would benefit everyone. Instead, we're left with a one-size-fits-all warning and no real communication.
	I have to say - as the developer of such "insecure" extension (Chrome-Emacs), I'm baffled by this "insecure” label. Every time I update my add-on, I submit the full source code and detailed instructions, yet it seems that no one ever really looks at what I provide. It feels like my work is automatically dismissed, and I'm being penalized just because it didn't go through some manual review process I can't even influence.
	What exactly does "actively monitored” mean? If my extension were truly dangerous, this would be highlighted with concrete evidence or specific criteria. Instead, it simply gets tagged with a warning that nothing more is expected from me. It's hard not to feel brushed aside by a process that appears to rely more on automated checks than genuine security evaluations.

	I'm all for keeping users safe, but by lumping all non-"Recommended” extensions into the same category, it feels like you're ignoring the effort and transparency many developers like me put into our work. Clear guidance on how to move beyond this "caution” label would benefit everyone. Instead, we're left with a one-size-fits-all warning and no real communication.
No results found