Yep while this manifest v3 ugly thing is putting me on the brink of jumping ship (I compromise by having two browsers), as for your concern I found that Chrome is going to allow blacklisting extensions for sites, so now I can turn them off for the few sites that I really worry to grant extension read access.

chrome://flags, "Extensions Menu Access Control" flag. https://developer.chrome.com/blog/new-extensions-menu-testin...

If you are fine with two browsers, maybe you could instead look into separate Firefox profiles with different sets of extensions. I have added "-p" to my Firefox shortcut so it always starts with the profile picker thing.

Yeah that's definitely fair, I have the same concern. Currently I've reduced my extensions to just a few that I either trust (like gorhill's) or that I wrote myself. But I think it would be huge if Mozilla built out the tooling needed to keep a better monitor on them. It's an extremely hard problem to be sure though.

They already did? The have a list pf extension that are monitored by them as well authoring a few ones

Luckily there's an extension for that: [Under New Management | Chrome Web Store](https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/under-new-managemen...)

This is why I prefer Safari's content blockers. As far as I understand, there is no risk of content blockers sending out information.

After the Great Suspender debacle, I feel the same. I try to limit plugins/extensions to as many minimal use cases as possible.