Firefox also uses the Chrome extension API. Not that it matters, as Linkedin just checks the content injected into the site:

> Here’s why: some extensions have static resources (images, JavaScript) available to inject into our web pages. We can detect the presence of these extensions by checking if that static resource URL exists,

The only way to defend against this is to disable scripts entirely.

Exactly Chrome and realistically Chromium is essentially malware. Geeks especially should consider it a civic duty to use basically anything else. Which pretty much leaves Firefox and Safari.

Browser diversity is critical to keeping the web actually open. Even if Chromium is open source, the reality is Google drives the project entirely. It puts them in a powerful position to gatekeep, and that is bad for all the same reasons it was bad when IE-5/6 ruled the web, nearly uncontested.

We don't want a web where the only standard is whatever chromium does.

Way to put a bandage on a wound rather than treating the cause of the bleeding. Not using Chrome doesn't help you here. You are being fingerprinted regardless.

> Now it's just a place to park my resume

Have you ever received a legitimate job offer, or even a nibble, from an employer that you might actually consider working for, that came through LinkedIn?

Me neither.

You'd be much better served by posting your resume or having it on file with a few employers you would consider and who are legitimate.

It's become very "I built this with AI" and "how your business is going to improve with AI" and all sorts of terrible content, and GAMES! WTF.

Or people want the fastest possible way to not give a website or company their money if they don't support the same morals as themselves. That might be it too.

No mention of islam though, which was the next thing filtered.

"and two others that can block content forbidden under Islamic teachings. "

You can tell which one people have learned to fear. Islam is the future, because even anonymously, people have learned to fear them.

According to the writeup; there are two methods: it is possible for an extension to mark some parts of itself as 'web accessible'; and linkedin has assembled at least one characteristic file for 6,1000-odd extension IDs and attempts to fetch it to confirm/deny the extension's presence.

The other is based on the fact that the whole point of many extensions is to modify the site in some way; but the site normally has largely unfettered access to inspect itself, so they have theirs set up to walk the entire DOM looking for any references to "chrome-extension://" and snagging the IDs if found.

Not exactly a 'declare installed extensions'; but it looks like, out of some combination of supporting the use cases where an extension and page actively interact by design and either not wanting the possibility or not wanting the complexity of trying to enable 'invisible' edits(presumably some sort of 'shadow' DOM mechanism where as far as the site and everything delivered with it knows only its unedited DOM and resources exist; but the one the user sees is an extension-modified copy of that one, which sounds like it could get messy), inferential attacks are fairly easy and powerful.

This isn't even the worst thing LinkedIn has gotten caught doing. It's always been an entirely criminal enterprise masquerading as a normal jobs board.

> After the company was caught spamming contacts a decade ago did anyone think they would improve?

Define "improvement". A decade ago LinkedIn was sold to Microsoft for $26.2billion. It seems Microsoft values LinkedIn plenty, just the way things are.

It knows the things you voluntarily chose to disclose. And that's fine. The problem lies in when they decide to take information you did NOT voluntarily choose to disclose.