Manually whitelist extensions removed from AMO for purely political reasons in Tor Browser to fight Mozilla's censorship
Mozilla recently removed the Dissenter Firefox add-on, an add-on that allows users to make comments on any web page that can be viewed only by other Dissenter users, from AMO for "hate speech" (which of course is a charge only even possibly related to some of the content its users freely posted on it and not any particular sentiment expressed by the program's interface, description, etc. itself). This is similar to the charges commonly levied against the Tor Project that it promotes child pornography, drug addiction, terrorism, hate speech, etc. simply because it facilitates the creation of a free and open platform that anyone can use anonymously, even those with ill intentions.
Surely, then, we must recognize the folly in accusing the creators of the Dissenter add-on themselves of hate speech (and thus removing their extension) simply for the expressions of its users and thus that Mozilla's removal of the add-on (in coordination with Google's removal of it from the Chrome Web Store, which should tell you all you need to know about the shadowy motivations behind it) was arbitrary, unjustified, and unethical. The same logic that's been used against Dissenter could easily be turned against the Tor Project by Mozilla in order to attempt to hinder the creation and dissemination of Tor Browser.
So my question is this: When is the Tor Project going to condemn this unjust censorship of an add-on that merely attempts to aid one of the goals of the Tor Project itself (the protection of freedom of expression online) from its partner Mozilla, and when is the Tor Browser going to provide its users with a convenient means to work around this odious totalitarianism from the browser (Firefox) it is based on?
Leaving the situation as it is, where any add-ons that Mozilla deems to be insufficiently politically correct enough are demoted to "temporary add-ons" that must be clunkily reinstalled with each browser restart, is unacceptable (as is requiring users to entirely disable the protections the current system from Mozilla provides because they want to install on a permanent basis an extension that was not removed from AMO for being a security risk).
Tor Browser should take a stand against this freedom of expression-hostile action from its partner Mozilla by adding to its forked Firefox code a "whitelist" of extensions that were removed from AMO purely for politically biased reasons, allowing them to be installed in Tor Browser normally as if they came from AMO itself. This strikes the right balance between preserving the general protections that Mozilla's extension security system provides while sending a clear message to Mozilla that the Tor Project, at the very least, will not allow Mozilla to censor its users or block any extension in its fork of their browser other than those that are actively hostile to the user (as opposed to hostile to Mozilla's agenda).
If the Tor Project is truly in favor of freedom online, then it can no longer stay silent about big tech censorship. After all, what is the meaning of the Tor network if its anonymity can only be used to shout in dark isolated corners where nobody can hear you? Dissenter, which has no restrictions on accounts registering with or using the Tor network to post, opened up the web universally for comment by Tor users, even the areas of it traditionally hostile to Tor. Mozilla's actions are a direct attack on this newfound freedom. The Tor Project opposed Cloudflare when it attempted to restrict the freedom of Tor users. Now it must express that same opposition to Mozilla.