10 ms·

I already use the multi-container accounts to do this. It works fantastically, and is the biggest reason that Chrome is gone from my mac. Why is this different

I already use the multi-container accounts to do this. It works fantastically, and is the biggest reason that Chrome is gone from my mac. Why is this different from Privacy Badger? This allows you to segregate all facebook toxicity to a single container. This allows you to fully use facebook, and places like login via facebook, without exposing other things to facebook in the first place. That said, this really doesn't address either the Cambridge situation, or the fact that Facebook themselves allowed the Obama campagin to pull demographic information in violation of their own polices, which was arguably impacted far more people (https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/facebook-data-scandal-trump-election-obama-2012/ https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/facebook-data-... && http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5520303/Obama-campaign-director-reveals-Facebook-ALLOWED-data.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5520303/Obama-campai...). The only solution to that is to #DeleteFacebook. Facebook is a surveillance as a service provider. The only way to keep them from monetizing you for commercial, social or political reasons is to firewall them off. You can also associate this with a VPN, if you want to deny them the IP address your home machine is using.

unethical_ban 9y ago
Yes, this was the first thing I did when I installed multi-container tabs. I use it for Facebook and banking.
- dralley 9y ago
  I don't use it for banking but I do contain Amazon as well.
- cryptonector 9y ago
  Every account should get its own container.
  - MaupitiBlue 9y ago
    Everyone should use the firefox multi-account containers. Each account you use should have a separate container. The new versions allow you to associate bookmarks to containers. Fabulous!
  - callahad 9y ago
    That's effectively what privacy.firstparty.isolate does in about:config. Every origin automatically gets its own container. This is one of the features that we've brought upstream from the Tor browser. Further reading at https://www.torproject.org/projects/torbrowser/design/#identifier-linkability https://www.torproject.org/projects/torbrowser/design/#ident...
WalterGR 9y ago
> Facebook themselves allowed the Obama campagin to pull demographic information in violation of their own polices, which was arguably impacted far more people (https://www.investors.com/.. https://www.investors.com/... && http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/...). Neither of those citations say that what the Obama campaign did violated Facebook's policies. The "But the Obama campaign did something similar!" is an argument based on false equivalence, used to muddy the conversation. (Further, both of those citations - a right-leaning source[0] and a tabloid, respectively - are articles written about some tweets. Which is not to say that they're wrong, but without further confirmation, one might want to take them with a grain of salt.) [0] The "You might like" links at the bottom are to the articles "Russia Scandal: Did Obama Tutor Hillary Clinton In Electoral Conspiracy 101?", "Will Mueller Ever Admit That There Was No Trump-Russia Collusion?", and "Hillary Clinton Still Can't Believe She Lost ... Or Why".
- cryptonector 9y ago
  > > Facebook themselves allowed the Obama campagin to pull demographic information in violation of their own polices, which was arguably impacted far more people (https://www.investors.com/.. https://www.investors.com/... && http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/...). > Neither of those citations say that what the Obama campaign did violated Facebook's policies. The text you quoted does not claim that the Obama campaign violated FB's policies. It says that FB allowed the Obama campaign to do things that would -without FB's approval- have violated FB's policies.
- InTheArena 9y ago
  Actually, if you look, the original source said that Facebook admitted that they were only doing so because they wanted Obama to win - and that for anyone else it would be a violation of their practices. The OFA postulated that Facebook did the same for other parties, but no evidence has come to light. In fact, reading what the OFA admitted, and what is under investigation here, the only difference seems to be that Facebook didn't unofficially bless the efforts of Cambridge, while they did for OFA. Here is the money quote - directly from Twitter: “They came to office in the days following election recruiting & were very candid that they allowed us to do things they wouldn’t have allowed someone else to do because they were on our side" That's not a conspiracy theory, or some evil double standard. That is a director for OFA explicitly mentioning that they were being given special data "because they were on our side". You should be very very scared about social network deciding to be on peoples side. See Trump and Twitter. It's as if the last two years hasn't convinced you to be deeply skeptical of social networks and surveillance as a service operations. This universal confirmation bias is the exact same bias that Trumpkins use to ignore any news they don't like. Facebook will keep selling you to the highest bidder. They don't give a fsck about your political point of views. (And this is probably tame for what they do for China to suppress their people).
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
HugoDaniel 9y ago
They do keep shadow profiles even if you #DeleteFacebook or don't use it at all.
- r00fus 9y ago
  use FB disconnect, noscript and ublock, use multiple container profiles (not just for FB). I've quit FB, but the above might be enough to contain FB for those who can't/won't. I still do the above for any other privacy-hating aspirants.
  - Spivak 9y ago
    Not saying you shouldn't play the cat and mouse game but it wouldn't take much to have the FB code served first party. You're gaining security the same way bike locks provide security. Anyone motivated could break it but you're hoping that enough people are easier targets that you're ignored. This solution is good for you personally but it's not a fix.
collyw 9y ago
"The only way to keep them from monetizing you for commercial, social or political reasons is to firewall them off." I have though of spamming face book with a ton of likes and shares of things I am not actually interested in. What are peoples opinions of that? It has the obvious problem that my friends might associate me with things I actually dislike.
- paulie_a 9y ago
  I've been doing that for a while. Also hiding every single suggested post to the extent that Facebook occasionally blocks me for "abusing" that feature.
- groovecoder 9y ago
  Check out this book: https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/obfuscation https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/obfuscation Full of obfuscation tactics like that.
- jiveturkey 9y ago
  What’s so wrong with them monetizing you? You are getting some benefit. As long as said monetization is privacy-preserving IMHO it’s ok. Spamming likes and what not to disrupt your profile might be great for your own privacy but isn’t stopping them from monetizing you at all.
  - collyw 9y ago
    That bit doesn't bother me so much. Its the way the data is used to influence elections and Zuckerbergs attitude that annoy me.
iamnothere 9y ago
> That said, this really doesn't address either the Cambridge situation, or the fact that Facebook themselves allowed the Obama campagin to pull demographic information in violation of their own polices, which was arguably impacted far more people (https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/facebook-data-.. https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/facebook-data-.... && http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5520303/Obama-campai... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5520303/Obama-campai...). But Facebook is a private company, so they're allowed to do what they want regardless of whatever "policies" they set, so long as they remain within the law. If you don't like it, start your own Facebook! (Due to Poe's law, I should note that I'm being sarcastic. Funny that this sentiment gets brought up all the time in discussions about YouTube, but not here...) Just deactivated Facebook, and it's a wonderfully freeing sensation. I can always reactivate it if I really need to reach somebody who's only available on there, but that's unlikely at best.
jiveturkey 9y ago
> biggest reason that Chrome is gone from my mac You can do the same thing with Chrome profiles, Chrome Canary and Choosy. This multi-container thing (per OP, don't know if you are using the same one) appears to be FB only. So while it is effortless, it's reactionary and limited. The general solution is better and doesn't force you to a specific browser. https://weblog.bulknews.net/mac-routing-links-to-chrome-profiles-d30b3960af39 https://weblog.bulknews.net/mac-routing-links-to-chrome-prof... Disclaimer: When I use google (search, gmail, etc) and facebook I use specific profiles for those activities. I use a default profile for everything else. So, I don't actually use the above solution myself. I used to alternate between browsers for different uses but after the Pocket debacle I abandoned Firefox "for good". Since Quantum I haven't liked it anyway.
- nicoburns 9y ago
  This extension is FB specific, but thw underlying mechanism is generic, and has an advantage over chrome profiles in that tabs with different 'profiles'/'containers' can share a window.
- perennate 9y ago
  I believe the parent comment is referring to multi-account-containers [1], which is a general implementation. This Facebook extension is a reactionary Facebook-specific adaptation of that extension. But it is still useful for many users since it doesn't require any user interaction. I think multi-account-containers is more convenient than profiles since it provides a single interface to manage the containers and browser settings are shared, but I am actually using profiles on Firefox because the extension doesn't seem to support the "Never remember history" browser option. [1] https://github.com/mozilla/multi-account-containers https://github.com/mozilla/multi-account-containers and https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/multi-account-containers/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/multi-account...
dingaling 9y ago
I just use mbasic.Facebook.com in the basic netsurf browser. No JS, no other sites. Avoids any possibility of accidentally letting Facebook out of its box.
Tomte 9y ago
> I already use the multi-container accounts to do this. How? Specifically the part where clicking a link inside the FB container that leads outside of FB opens outside the container? AFAIK it's impossible, and that's why I stopped using the multi container stuff in Firefox. It's such an obvious oversight. When they implemented "get into the container when clicking xyz.com" how come they never thought of "get out of the container when clicking something that's not xyz.com"?

unethical_ban 9y ago

Yes, this was the first thing I did when I installed multi-container tabs. I use it for Facebook and banking.

dralley 9y ago
I don't use it for banking but I do contain Amazon as well.
cryptonector 9y ago
Every account should get its own container.
- MaupitiBlue 9y ago
  Everyone should use the firefox multi-account containers. Each account you use should have a separate container. The new versions allow you to associate bookmarks to containers. Fabulous!
- callahad 9y ago
  That's effectively what privacy.firstparty.isolate does in about:config. Every origin automatically gets its own container. This is one of the features that we've brought upstream from the Tor browser. Further reading at https://www.torproject.org/projects/torbrowser/design/#identifier-linkability https://www.torproject.org/projects/torbrowser/design/#ident...

WalterGR 9y ago

> Facebook themselves allowed the Obama campagin to pull demographic information in violation of their own polices, which was arguably impacted far more people (https://www.investors.com/.. https://www.investors.com/... && http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/...). Neither of those citations say that what the Obama campaign did violated Facebook's policies. The "But the Obama campaign did something similar!" is an argument based on false equivalence, used to muddy the conversation. (Further, both of those citations - a right-leaning source[0] and a tabloid, respectively - are articles written about some tweets. Which is not to say that they're wrong, but without further confirmation, one might want to take them with a grain of salt.) [0] The "You might like" links at the bottom are to the articles "Russia Scandal: Did Obama Tutor Hillary Clinton In Electoral Conspiracy 101?", "Will Mueller Ever Admit That There Was No Trump-Russia Collusion?", and "Hillary Clinton Still Can't Believe She Lost ... Or Why".

cryptonector 9y ago
> > Facebook themselves allowed the Obama campagin to pull demographic information in violation of their own polices, which was arguably impacted far more people (https://www.investors.com/.. https://www.investors.com/... && http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/...). > Neither of those citations say that what the Obama campaign did violated Facebook's policies. The text you quoted does not claim that the Obama campaign violated FB's policies. It says that FB allowed the Obama campaign to do things that would -without FB's approval- have violated FB's policies.
InTheArena 9y ago
Actually, if you look, the original source said that Facebook admitted that they were only doing so because they wanted Obama to win - and that for anyone else it would be a violation of their practices. The OFA postulated that Facebook did the same for other parties, but no evidence has come to light. In fact, reading what the OFA admitted, and what is under investigation here, the only difference seems to be that Facebook didn't unofficially bless the efforts of Cambridge, while they did for OFA. Here is the money quote - directly from Twitter: “They came to office in the days following election recruiting & were very candid that they allowed us to do things they wouldn’t have allowed someone else to do because they were on our side" That's not a conspiracy theory, or some evil double standard. That is a director for OFA explicitly mentioning that they were being given special data "because they were on our side". You should be very very scared about social network deciding to be on peoples side. See Trump and Twitter. It's as if the last two years hasn't convinced you to be deeply skeptical of social networks and surveillance as a service operations. This universal confirmation bias is the exact same bias that Trumpkins use to ignore any news they don't like. Facebook will keep selling you to the highest bidder. They don't give a fsck about your political point of views. (And this is probably tame for what they do for China to suppress their people).

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

HugoDaniel 9y ago

They do keep shadow profiles even if you #DeleteFacebook or don't use it at all.

r00fus 9y ago
use FB disconnect, noscript and ublock, use multiple container profiles (not just for FB). I've quit FB, but the above might be enough to contain FB for those who can't/won't. I still do the above for any other privacy-hating aspirants.
- Spivak 9y ago
  Not saying you shouldn't play the cat and mouse game but it wouldn't take much to have the FB code served first party. You're gaining security the same way bike locks provide security. Anyone motivated could break it but you're hoping that enough people are easier targets that you're ignored. This solution is good for you personally but it's not a fix.

collyw 9y ago

"The only way to keep them from monetizing you for commercial, social or political reasons is to firewall them off." I have though of spamming face book with a ton of likes and shares of things I am not actually interested in. What are peoples opinions of that? It has the obvious problem that my friends might associate me with things I actually dislike.

paulie_a 9y ago
I've been doing that for a while. Also hiding every single suggested post to the extent that Facebook occasionally blocks me for "abusing" that feature.
groovecoder 9y ago
Check out this book: https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/obfuscation https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/obfuscation Full of obfuscation tactics like that.
jiveturkey 9y ago
What’s so wrong with them monetizing you? You are getting some benefit. As long as said monetization is privacy-preserving IMHO it’s ok. Spamming likes and what not to disrupt your profile might be great for your own privacy but isn’t stopping them from monetizing you at all.
- collyw 9y ago
  That bit doesn't bother me so much. Its the way the data is used to influence elections and Zuckerbergs attitude that annoy me.

iamnothere 9y ago

> That said, this really doesn't address either the Cambridge situation, or the fact that Facebook themselves allowed the Obama campagin to pull demographic information in violation of their own polices, which was arguably impacted far more people (https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/facebook-data-.. https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/facebook-data-.... && http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5520303/Obama-campai... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5520303/Obama-campai...). But Facebook is a private company, so they're allowed to do what they want regardless of whatever "policies" they set, so long as they remain within the law. If you don't like it, start your own Facebook! (Due to Poe's law, I should note that I'm being sarcastic. Funny that this sentiment gets brought up all the time in discussions about YouTube, but not here...) Just deactivated Facebook, and it's a wonderfully freeing sensation. I can always reactivate it if I really need to reach somebody who's only available on there, but that's unlikely at best.

jiveturkey 9y ago

> biggest reason that Chrome is gone from my mac You can do the same thing with Chrome profiles, Chrome Canary and Choosy. This multi-container thing (per OP, don't know if you are using the same one) appears to be FB only. So while it is effortless, it's reactionary and limited. The general solution is better and doesn't force you to a specific browser. https://weblog.bulknews.net/mac-routing-links-to-chrome-profiles-d30b3960af39 https://weblog.bulknews.net/mac-routing-links-to-chrome-prof... Disclaimer: When I use google (search, gmail, etc) and facebook I use specific profiles for those activities. I use a default profile for everything else. So, I don't actually use the above solution myself. I used to alternate between browsers for different uses but after the Pocket debacle I abandoned Firefox "for good". Since Quantum I haven't liked it anyway.

nicoburns 9y ago
This extension is FB specific, but thw underlying mechanism is generic, and has an advantage over chrome profiles in that tabs with different 'profiles'/'containers' can share a window.
perennate 9y ago
I believe the parent comment is referring to multi-account-containers [1], which is a general implementation. This Facebook extension is a reactionary Facebook-specific adaptation of that extension. But it is still useful for many users since it doesn't require any user interaction. I think multi-account-containers is more convenient than profiles since it provides a single interface to manage the containers and browser settings are shared, but I am actually using profiles on Firefox because the extension doesn't seem to support the "Never remember history" browser option. [1] https://github.com/mozilla/multi-account-containers https://github.com/mozilla/multi-account-containers and https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/multi-account-containers/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/multi-account...

dingaling 9y ago

I just use mbasic.Facebook.com in the basic netsurf browser. No JS, no other sites. Avoids any possibility of accidentally letting Facebook out of its box.

Tomte 9y ago

> I already use the multi-container accounts to do this. How? Specifically the part where clicking a link inside the FB container that leads outside of FB opens outside the container? AFAIK it's impossible, and that's why I stopped using the multi container stuff in Firefox. It's such an obvious oversight. When they implemented "get into the container when clicking xyz.com" how come they never thought of "get out of the container when clicking something that's not xyz.com"?