But Firefox still didn't have to implement the limit.

Then don't use the downgraded version of the ad blocker? What is the point of having two versions of MV3 when you can use a superior adblocker on Firefox anyway?

Like what? I can't imagine firefox has done anything worse then MV3.

Oh, I don't know, maybe breaking literally all of their extension with the deprecation of XUL?

I'm a happy firefox user, and I'm pretty sure it was the right choice IMO, as firefox is certainly much more stable and fast now than it was before. But it was certainly a very, very rough process and left some very popular extensions broken without alternatives for months and even years before the necessary APIs were added to webextensions to bring them back.

"Breaking all of their extensions with the depreciation of XUL" is one interpretation, another one is that it was needed (of course it was the correct choice!) and there wasn't going to be an easier approach than just ripping the band-aid off. It needed to be done, it's done, and now instead of discussing the larger picture, we're talking about XUL depreciation from Firefox which happened in 2018. So what's your point?

VPN providers won't be able to verify if a user paid for the service.

Not just VPN providers or other paid services. Open proxies on the internet are bad for everyone.

Authorization and access control are different problems. You can use ssh to create a auth-free SOCKS5 pipe, for example (lots of us do this every day), but that's not an "open proxy" because it's e.g. listening on ::1 or on the internal network interface, etc...

What are the other issues with open proxies?

They are usually hosted by malware installed on a vulnerable system. And if they are SOCKS proxies (vs http proxies), then they can send send spam using the IP address of the infected device.

Cyberattacks use open proxies to amplify the attack/hide their source.

There are many legitimate use cases of VPN's. Also there are many VPN companies that don't do false advertising such as Windscribe, mullvad or iVPN.

> There are many legitimate use cases of VPN's

Yes of course, but that probably represents less than 10% of the customers (I'm being extremely generous on purpose, it's probably 0.1%) of your usual NordVPN and co.

> don't do false advertising such as Windscribe

"Stop tracking and browse privately" and "block annoying advertisers from stalking you online" proves you wrong. VPNs don't stop trackers.

> don't do false advertising such as Mullvad

"Evade hackers and trackers". Sure.

> don't do false advertising such as iVPN

Hey looks good actually, they indeed don't claim to block trackers or anything else, just change your IP / geolocation.

> Yes of course, but that probably represents less than 10% of the customers.

Lol how did you come up with 10%? Did you just make it up?

> VPNs don't stop trackers.

Windscribe (and other VPN's) can block trackers. https://blog.windscribe.com/how-r-o-b-e-r-t-works-76d6274460...

A huge portion of VPN users do it to get around geo-blocking, which has not been falsely advertised.

> Hey looks good actually, they indeed don't claim to block trackers or anything else, just change your IP / geolocation

Add FoxyProxy to that list of no false advertising, please

How is Bhutan a good counterpoint?

Do you have any sources where I can read more about this practice?