I know where you're coming from, I don't see a contradiction here. This is about extensions that are side-loaded e.g. through an enterprise group policy or by a snake oil product, where the user in front of the screen did not explicitly approve the installation of the extension. Disabling this means that users have to approve each extension, which does indeed give them more control.

Thẹn why not just leave the functionality there but force users to confirm the installation the next time you restart the browser? And make it possible to remove the sideloaded extension always?

They're converting these "sideloaded" extensions into "normally installed" ones, and then the user will gain that ability. They're not just wiping these extensions without warning.

During the release cycle for Firefox version 73, which goes into pre-release channels on December 3, 2019 and into release on February 11, 2020, Firefox will continue to read sideloaded files, but they will be copied over to the user’s individual profile and installed as regular add-ons. Sideloading will stop being supported in Firefox version 74, which will be released on March 10, 2020. The transitional stage in Firefox 73 will ensure that no installed add-ons will be lost, and end users will gain the ability to remove them if they chose to.

But then again why not just treat these sideloaded extensions as first-class citizen, add support for their removal, and add confirmation before enabling them the first time?

> Disabling this means that users have to approve each extension, which does indeed give them more control.

From what I read only if those extensions are declared acceptable (aka signed) by Mozilla. Pretending this gives me as user the control seems highly disingenuous. The only entity with all the power is certainly not the user anymore.

Signing has been mandatory for a while. It's unrelated to this specific change, which is giving the user more control.

Sideloading isn't always under the control of the user. Thus removing the option gives more control.

It's not like removing a hole in your city wall gives you less control over entry into your city, even though it does remove a method of entry.

I don't see how removing the option gives more control. If you want more control why not just add a confirmation step the first time the extension is loaded, and make it possible/easy to remove it?

In you analogy it doesn't give the users of the hole more control of how they get in to their city, it gives the city gate controllers more control.

This doesn't give users more control, it gives less.

People who wanted to control their own 'hole' might have wanted to let people in that the city elders didn't care for.

Exactly. I saw where this was going a few years ago and started using Pale Moon.