I have no idea where to start, but I should probably start with this, the Browser Extension/Userscript Policy, posted by @ceebee, a member of the Scratch Team. Personally, I think it is perfectly fine, as it means we can still keep browser extensions, just not advertise them. I just would like to share this parts of the post:

Browser Extension/Userscript Policy wrote:

We (Scratch Team) are no longer going to allow these to be advertised on Scratch.

So how is it that popular Scratchers with hundreds of thousands of followers are immune to this while INNOCENT scratchers, who genuinely don't know about this policy, get BLOCKED for it overnight with no warning beforehand?
also i'm talking about @griffpatch, if it wasn't clear enough

Browser Extension/Userscript Policy wrote:

Browser-based extensions and userscripts can be risky because they can get access to everything you do online.

That certain extension only has access to scratch.mit.edu. I see no reason for INNOCENT Scratchers to be blocked just because of it. Imagine waking up, checking Scratch, and realising your account is BLOCKED just because you shared an extension that was shared by the MOST FOLLOWED Scratcher who INTENTIONALLY links a YouTube account containing advertisments for that very browser extension!

Browser Extension/Userscript Policy wrote:

We (Scratch Team) encourage you to use these tools only if they were created by people or organizations you trust.

The extension I am talking about WAS made by a person I trust (@griffpatch).

Actually, let's take a look at the browser extension. I looked through all the features. There is no private chat, no Scratchers being disrespectful to one another, just features that us Scratchers have to install browser extensions for because Scratch Team doesn't want to implement suggestions that can be actually useful! If you want to block people with NO prior warning just for that, why not block all the video game topics in TIMAC? They might be dangerous.

Please, Scratch Team. Fix this broken system. I get that Scratch is a non-profit organisation, but that doesn't really fix things from a user's point of view. Even if I owned a non-profit organisation, I would still admit my mistakes. I don't know how this will be fixed, but it must be fixed one way or another.

A bonus treat: a quote by @_Elektron_ (I'm afraid to link the source because it contains names of a browser extension which isn't the one that this post is talking about. I replaced all instances of it with (browser extension):

_Elektron_ wrote:

I respectfully disagree with the new policy. From your point of view, I can see that you just want to keep Scratchers safe. I totally get that, but as far as I know, there has been no instances where (browser extension) or other popular extensions tried to steal user information. If you ban the advertisement of extensions, which to me is banning extensions itself, is making the community more uninformed. Kids should be taught about internet safety, and how to take advantage of the various aspects of the internet - such as extensions. So instead of just banning something, why don't we educate others about internet safety and how to use extensions?

It is like forcing people to stay home because the real world is dangerous. Instead of just keeping them home, why don't we teach them how to survive in the real world rather than hide from it?

Also, I kinda wanna write about how @griffpatch is offering paid memberships on his YouTube channel and Griffpatch Academy, but I'm too lazy…

who said people who break this rule get blocked
people who mention browser extensions for the first time probs only get warned.

starlightsparker wrote:

who said people who break this rule get blocked
people who mention browser extensions for the first time probs only get warned.

I know who I'm talking about, even though I can't mention them.

TheUltimateHoodie wrote:

starlightsparker wrote:

who said people who break this rule get blocked
people who mention browser extensions for the first time probs only get warned.

I know who I'm talking about, even though I can't mention them.

they can appeal. not knowing its not allowed is a genuine reason to be unblocked, and they would probably be unblocked if they appealed.

starlightsparker wrote:

TheUltimateHoodie wrote:

starlightsparker wrote:

who said people who break this rule get blocked
people who mention browser extensions for the first time probs only get warned.

I know who I'm talking about, even though I can't mention them.

they can appeal. not knowing its not allowed is a genuine reason to be unblocked, and they would probably be unblocked if they appealed.

The main thing I'm concerned about is if Scratch Team won't accept their appeal! This makes the entire system unfair. Also, I'm pretty sure not knowing its not allowed isn't a genuine reason to be unblocked; that's like killing somebody and later saying to the police, “I'm sorry, I didn't know it wasn't allowed”. No matter what the murderer thinks, the person will still be dead. If it was a genuine reason, that would be a whole issue all by it's own.

TheUltimateHoodie wrote:

starlightsparker wrote:

TheUltimateHoodie wrote:

starlightsparker wrote:

who said people who break this rule get blocked
people who mention browser extensions for the first time probs only get warned.

I know who I'm talking about, even though I can't mention them.

they can appeal. not knowing its not allowed is a genuine reason to be unblocked, and they would probably be unblocked if they appealed.

The main thing I'm concerned about is if Scratch Team won't accept their appeal! This makes the entire system unfair. Also, I'm pretty sure not knowing its not allowed isn't a genuine reason to be unblocked; that's like killing somebody and later saying to the police, “I'm sorry, I didn't know it wasn't allowed”. No matter what the murderer thinks, the person will still be dead. If it was a genuine reason, that would be a whole issue all by it's own.

look, if actually breaking cg and apologizing can get someone unblocked, not knowing certainly can. also, you cant compare a murder to this. anyways, naming browser extensions is a pretty mild offense, so not knowing it exists and clarifying that in their appeal can probably get one unblocked.

The extension policy ruling has been out since 2017, nearly seven years now. It would be hard to miss, especially with all the notifications given out and whatnot. Griffpatch can reach out to us requesting a discussion of regarding potential whitelist of his extension if he wishes. Otherwise, we'll be treating them all the same.

Regardless, sharing content that asks us to unblock a user is not allowed on Scratch and will not influence any decision regarding their account. The person will need to submit an appeal (and do so respectfully if they wish for a good outcome) or have an adult reach out to the Scratch Team to have the account unblocked.