There are many people that see the perscribed stimulants we use to medicate, as no different then the ones which are often abused to get high.
I mean, there is little difference between the two. The main difference is the usage. One is a medicinal use, the other is a recreational use (or abuse). People should learn to make that distinction. Cocaine is used as a local numbing agent in eye surgery. Morphine (heroine) is used as a painkiller. We should not give in to the morons who for whatever reason say our medicinal use is invalid or wrong.
Of course having fewer extensions installed doesn't protect you from the ones that you have installed. But the fewer you have the smaller your attack surface is. And as a general tip, I think it's a good one, even on Lemmy. Because I'm not going to assume people's understanding of the web, browsers or permissions. And when it comes to the general population, a lack of understanding of an extension's permissions has very little to do with ones ability to read.
Obviously a simple URL redirector for wikipedia requesting access to this data is absurd and would be an immediate red flag.
To you, yes it should be. But it does require knowledge about how websites and browsers work that most people don't have. I'd be very surprised if 50% of people have any idea what those permissions actually do and what would be reasonable for different extensions to have.
You obviously shouldn't install closed source or otherwise shady extensions from dodgy authors you don't know, but on the whole there is very little they can do that you should worry about.
Sorry if I'm nitpicky or confused here. You just said it's obvious that you shouldn't install closed sourced or otherwise shady extensions. Do you think a normie knows and cares if an extension is open source? And how do they know if an extension is "shady"? And what about legit extensions that get bought by shady people and turned into shady ones long after they've been installed and the user base trusts it?
You live by that and I'll live by the advice I've seen from infosec professionals that recommend as few add-ons as possible due to security concerns. But yes, browsers are getting more secure over time and that's good.
I would assume, and hope, it works really well for such usage. I only tend to end up on Wikipedia a couple of times a week, and 95% of that is on my desktop to have a quick look at something I won't be getting back to ever again.
General infosec tip: keep your browser add-ons to the absolute minimum you can live with. Add-ons are attack vectors. The more you have - the more at risk you are. And only install the ones you have a reason to trust.
Sure, and while I think that's a good idea, it's not really the same thing. Even though a rich person is more likely to drive a more expensive vehicle, you can have wealthy people driving sensible cars (especially the really wealthy) and lower income idiots, I mean people, having saved up and taken out ridiculous loans to get their expensive dream car that they can't afford. Confiscating those two vehicles would be the complete opposite of equality in terms of financial pain.
🥱