3 ms·

Granted, this is non-default config. When blocking third-party cookies, Chrome shows a little icon which you can click to whitelist blocked cookies. There is no

Granted, this is non-default config. When blocking third-party cookies, Chrome shows a little icon which you can click to whitelist blocked cookies. There is no such Firefox option that I've found yet. It's also a lot easier to toggle javascript for individual sites in Chrome without extensions.

Sylos 10y ago
This is arguable in my opinion. Someone who wants to block third-party Cookies or JavaScript shouldn't have any trouble with installing extensions.
- ak4g 10y ago
  Now you've forced me to make at at least two more decisions: to open up addons.mozilla to find a cookie-management extension, and to open up addons.mozilla to find a javascript-permissions-management extension. At each of these interactions, I would be confronted with the worst possible next-actionable-step: a large, seemingly unbounded number of options. Picking any of them then requires an additional interaction to confirm, possibly whilst (realistically speaking) disregarding scary-looking security warnings about what the extension will be able to do with my first-born child. Of course, IRL, users respond as you'd expect when given such immediate negative feedback. They will make it through at most one forced-decision interaction. By the time they hit #2, the user's goal will become "install Chrome", not "figure out which extension to install next". It's really important to recognize here that the extension search/installation/configuration user flow is more-or-less indistinguishable from actively punishing the user for using firefox. Oh, so you want to use firefox, and actually do something? Kindly direct this barrage of STOP NO DONT feedback to your decision-making apparatus until it comes around to it's senses and installs something, anything else.
  - Drdrdrq 10y ago
    What a great summary of extension installation process! I wonder why they never streamlined it and made at least a list of featured (curated / reviewed for security) extensions. That said, I still prefer Firefox to anything produced by MS, sorry, I mean Google... :)
adrianN 10y ago
Back in the day the idea of Firefox was to provide a simple browser that is easily extended. So I'd say that it's by design that you can't do those things easily without extensions. I use NoScript and Cookie Monster to selectively block scripts and cokkies and it works really well.
justinlardinois 10y ago
I agree, that's a great feature, and one that I wish Firefox had. I ended up switching back to allowing all cookies because my whitelist kept getting deleted (probably a bug) but when it works, it's wonderful.
pessimizer 10y ago
I can't live without Cookie Monster[1]. It's always at my bottom layer of privacy protection (installed earliest.) I wish one of the other things that I use that also regulates cookies would steal its UI (or FF itself), because once every year or two some interaction problem comes up between it and something else, though not nearly enough for me to give it up. Firefox seems to have adopted the Gnomeish philosophy to intentionally make it more difficult to selectively disable parts of the web as a way of guiding user behavior, so I don't see it happening. [1] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/cookie-monster/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/cookie-monste...

Sylos 10y ago

This is arguable in my opinion. Someone who wants to block third-party Cookies or JavaScript shouldn't have any trouble with installing extensions.

ak4g 10y ago
Now you've forced me to make at at least two more decisions: to open up addons.mozilla to find a cookie-management extension, and to open up addons.mozilla to find a javascript-permissions-management extension. At each of these interactions, I would be confronted with the worst possible next-actionable-step: a large, seemingly unbounded number of options. Picking any of them then requires an additional interaction to confirm, possibly whilst (realistically speaking) disregarding scary-looking security warnings about what the extension will be able to do with my first-born child. Of course, IRL, users respond as you'd expect when given such immediate negative feedback. They will make it through at most one forced-decision interaction. By the time they hit #2, the user's goal will become "install Chrome", not "figure out which extension to install next". It's really important to recognize here that the extension search/installation/configuration user flow is more-or-less indistinguishable from actively punishing the user for using firefox. Oh, so you want to use firefox, and actually do something? Kindly direct this barrage of STOP NO DONT feedback to your decision-making apparatus until it comes around to it's senses and installs something, anything else.
- Drdrdrq 10y ago
  What a great summary of extension installation process! I wonder why they never streamlined it and made at least a list of featured (curated / reviewed for security) extensions. That said, I still prefer Firefox to anything produced by MS, sorry, I mean Google... :)

adrianN 10y ago

Back in the day the idea of Firefox was to provide a simple browser that is easily extended. So I'd say that it's by design that you can't do those things easily without extensions. I use NoScript and Cookie Monster to selectively block scripts and cokkies and it works really well.

justinlardinois 10y ago

I agree, that's a great feature, and one that I wish Firefox had. I ended up switching back to allowing all cookies because my whitelist kept getting deleted (probably a bug) but when it works, it's wonderful.

pessimizer 10y ago

I can't live without Cookie Monster[1]. It's always at my bottom layer of privacy protection (installed earliest.) I wish one of the other things that I use that also regulates cookies would steal its UI (or FF itself), because once every year or two some interaction problem comes up between it and something else, though not nearly enough for me to give it up. Firefox seems to have adopted the Gnomeish philosophy to intentionally make it more difficult to selectively disable parts of the web as a way of guiding user behavior, so I don't see it happening. [1] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/cookie-monster/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/cookie-monste...