> Not sure how it was easier, since there is already a Firefox extension for Pocket which could have been shipped as an extension installed by default (but removable by users who do not want it)

Developers said that this way was easier to maintain. I am not sure why either.

> A lot of privacy-aware users will expect Mozilla to provide a way to easily disable and remove what are essentially features tangential to the core functionality of the browser. By making it a feature integrated into the core Firefox, the users now have to jump through various hoops to come close to achieving that. Having it as an extension makes it much easier to do so.

The hops thing works both way. What is better to have features enabled and then those that do not like them disable them or the other way around? (genuine question). The thing is that Pocket is not doing anything there unless you use it. So if you're not using it, then, its not actually working and removing it is two clicks away.

So, let me ask you a question, you prefer a browser where stuff is disabled by default and you enable them at your own will? Can you give me pointers into what about discovery of said features?

Thinking the other way around, what about a browser where features are enabled and then you disable what you do not like? Why is that bad in your opinion? The customize menu that allows you to reorder and remove features is not enough for you?

This is not a taunt or dare, I am asking questions because I think that when two groups have opposing views we can make a good civil discussion and come out with positive things we can do to fix any possible problem or at least to present to other groups as our desired behavior.