4 ms·

Say you click a link that sends you to facebook content (whether that be a video, or a group or other public content), does that then change you over to your lo

by 283894 8y ago

Say you click a link that sends you to facebook content (whether that be a video, or a group or other public content), does that then change you over to your logged in Facebook container tab? Isn't this kind of counter intuitive? I've been using the Containers plugin and its predecessors for years to isolate facebook, but I've always liked it because when someone links to facebook content I can then read it logged out in my normal tab. Obviously on top of this I am using ublock/umatrix anyway.

gingericha 8y ago
I'm a bit uninformed on Firefox Containers. Can you help me understand how this is different from using things like ublock/adblock plus/ghostery and why you might want to use both those, and a Facebook container?
- ldjb 8y ago
  uBlock and Adblock Plus are ad blockers. They block advertisements from appearing on the web pages you browse. I am not familiar with Ghostery. Firefox Multi-Account Containers is an extension [0] that allows you to compartmentalise cookies and other data into different containers. It's possibly best explained by thinking about how you might use it: Suppose you have two Twitter accounts: a personal account and a business account. Twitter usually only allows you to be logged into a single account at a time. This means that if you're currently logged into your personal account, you need to log out first before you can use your business account. With Containers, you can simply create a Business container and log into your business Twitter account in there. That way, you can be logged into two Twitter accounts at the same time. Containers do not act as ad blockers and perform a very different function. For more information on Containers, I would suggest reading the extension's description [0] and/or the support page [1]. This article is talking about a special version of Firefox Multi-Account Containers called Facebook Container [2]. This works similarly to Firefox Multi-Account Containers, but it isolates Facebook to its own dedicated container. [0] https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/addon/multi-account-containers/ https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/addon/multi-account-conta... [1] https://support.mozilla.org/kb/containers https://support.mozilla.org/kb/containers [2] https://www.mozilla.org/firefox/facebookcontainer/ https://www.mozilla.org/firefox/facebookcontainer/
- fpgaminer 8y ago
  uBlock, etc are for blocking ads and trackers. That means the trackers don't even load. Firefox Containers don't block ads, trackers, or anything. Instead, they isolate websites into their own "containers". Think of it like private browsing mode. Except each container is its own, separate private browser, and they persist. They're different approaches with pros and cons, but they can certainly be used together since they're orthogonal. Personally I use both. uBlock blocks ads/trackers/etc for me, while I use Containers as additional protection for not just social media sites but also to isolate my banking activity, work accounts, etc. It's useful for when you have multiple logins to the same site, and for mitigating some attacks (e.g. CSRF). [NOTE: I'm using the full featured Multi-Accounts Containers add-on, not the Facebook Container add-on mentioned in the article]
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - mickael-kerjean 8y ago
    > uBlock, etc are for blocking ads and trackers. That means the trackers don't even load. That's what they advertise, but it's not even remotly true. I've made a bit of an exercice to see how they are working. Basically they all (adblocker and tracker removal) have a database of bad guys and avoid the known bad guys to load. The problem is all the unknown bad guy. We would need something that is behavior based, not database based, doing my research I couldn't find one that was working as one would expect. Just as 1 example of the bad guys: Cloudflare that send cookies when the owner of the site is using their CDN regardless if you have setup a do not track header. Do any of those track blocker managed to block Cloudflare? Nope It makes me sad that our community for some reason I ignore don't even respect the do not track header. It literally is just decoration
    - andrewaylett 8y ago
      It sounds like you're looking for Privacy Badger: it uses heuristics to block requests and cookies from third-party sites based on their behaviour in your browser. https://www.eff.org/privacybadger https://www.eff.org/privacybadger The basic rule is that if more than one first-party site tries to connect to the same third-party, that third-party could be tracking you and will be blocked. But it's a little cleverer than that, and has etra rules to just block cookies from common CDNs.
ldjb 8y ago
The purpose of this extension is to isolate Facebook. So yes, when you click a link to Facebook, it will open it in a dedicated Facebook container. It would be counter intuitive if this is how the standard Containers extension worked, but for this specific extension, you are installing it to isolate Facebook, so I think this is how people would expect it to work. If the extension did not open Facebook links in a dedicated Facebook container, then I think the extension would not be doing its job correctly.
sp332 8y ago
Right - normal Containers are useful if you don't want sites you visit to track you by associating your browser with a FB account. Facebook Container is for when you don't want FB itself to track what websites you visit. (Normal containers also help if you just want to log into multiple FB accounts at once.)
fpgaminer 8y ago
> but I've always liked it because when someone links to facebook content I can then read it logged out in my normal tab. Personally I've trained the habit of opening most random links in private browsing mode. Besides achieving what you mention it seems like good, additional mitigation against tracking/security/etc. The only downside is lack of browsing history but I've never had much use for browsing history (mostly because I've found the search functionality in browsers to be useless).
amelius 8y ago
A few weeks ago I posted here [1] how I think that Containers should really work. I think your observation is a good one, and a rule for it should be added (or actually the third rule should be modified). [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16866086 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16866086
pritambaral 8y ago
I think you would like the Temporary Containers extension even more if you've been using Containers to keep logged in Facebook out. To automatically open Facebook links in a logged-in, dedicated-to-FB container is the entire point of this extension. After all, it was built for regular, non-tech-savvy people. To such people, it'd be a bad experience if suddenly they could no longer open FB links sent to them by their friends (because links to FB posts can have non-public visibility).

by 283894 8y ago

gingericha 8y ago

I'm a bit uninformed on Firefox Containers. Can you help me understand how this is different from using things like ublock/adblock plus/ghostery and why you might want to use both those, and a Facebook container?

ldjb 8y ago
uBlock and Adblock Plus are ad blockers. They block advertisements from appearing on the web pages you browse. I am not familiar with Ghostery. Firefox Multi-Account Containers is an extension [0] that allows you to compartmentalise cookies and other data into different containers. It's possibly best explained by thinking about how you might use it: Suppose you have two Twitter accounts: a personal account and a business account. Twitter usually only allows you to be logged into a single account at a time. This means that if you're currently logged into your personal account, you need to log out first before you can use your business account. With Containers, you can simply create a Business container and log into your business Twitter account in there. That way, you can be logged into two Twitter accounts at the same time. Containers do not act as ad blockers and perform a very different function. For more information on Containers, I would suggest reading the extension's description [0] and/or the support page [1]. This article is talking about a special version of Firefox Multi-Account Containers called Facebook Container [2]. This works similarly to Firefox Multi-Account Containers, but it isolates Facebook to its own dedicated container. [0] https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/addon/multi-account-containers/ https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/addon/multi-account-conta... [1] https://support.mozilla.org/kb/containers https://support.mozilla.org/kb/containers [2] https://www.mozilla.org/firefox/facebookcontainer/ https://www.mozilla.org/firefox/facebookcontainer/
fpgaminer 8y ago
uBlock, etc are for blocking ads and trackers. That means the trackers don't even load. Firefox Containers don't block ads, trackers, or anything. Instead, they isolate websites into their own "containers". Think of it like private browsing mode. Except each container is its own, separate private browser, and they persist. They're different approaches with pros and cons, but they can certainly be used together since they're orthogonal. Personally I use both. uBlock blocks ads/trackers/etc for me, while I use Containers as additional protection for not just social media sites but also to isolate my banking activity, work accounts, etc. It's useful for when you have multiple logins to the same site, and for mitigating some attacks (e.g. CSRF). [NOTE: I'm using the full featured Multi-Accounts Containers add-on, not the Facebook Container add-on mentioned in the article]
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- mickael-kerjean 8y ago
  > uBlock, etc are for blocking ads and trackers. That means the trackers don't even load. That's what they advertise, but it's not even remotly true. I've made a bit of an exercice to see how they are working. Basically they all (adblocker and tracker removal) have a database of bad guys and avoid the known bad guys to load. The problem is all the unknown bad guy. We would need something that is behavior based, not database based, doing my research I couldn't find one that was working as one would expect. Just as 1 example of the bad guys: Cloudflare that send cookies when the owner of the site is using their CDN regardless if you have setup a do not track header. Do any of those track blocker managed to block Cloudflare? Nope It makes me sad that our community for some reason I ignore don't even respect the do not track header. It literally is just decoration
  - andrewaylett 8y ago
    It sounds like you're looking for Privacy Badger: it uses heuristics to block requests and cookies from third-party sites based on their behaviour in your browser. https://www.eff.org/privacybadger https://www.eff.org/privacybadger The basic rule is that if more than one first-party site tries to connect to the same third-party, that third-party could be tracking you and will be blocked. But it's a little cleverer than that, and has etra rules to just block cookies from common CDNs.

ldjb 8y ago

The purpose of this extension is to isolate Facebook. So yes, when you click a link to Facebook, it will open it in a dedicated Facebook container. It would be counter intuitive if this is how the standard Containers extension worked, but for this specific extension, you are installing it to isolate Facebook, so I think this is how people would expect it to work. If the extension did not open Facebook links in a dedicated Facebook container, then I think the extension would not be doing its job correctly.

sp332 8y ago

Right - normal Containers are useful if you don't want sites you visit to track you by associating your browser with a FB account. Facebook Container is for when you don't want FB itself to track what websites you visit. (Normal containers also help if you just want to log into multiple FB accounts at once.)

fpgaminer 8y ago

> but I've always liked it because when someone links to facebook content I can then read it logged out in my normal tab. Personally I've trained the habit of opening most random links in private browsing mode. Besides achieving what you mention it seems like good, additional mitigation against tracking/security/etc. The only downside is lack of browsing history but I've never had much use for browsing history (mostly because I've found the search functionality in browsers to be useless).

amelius 8y ago

A few weeks ago I posted here [1] how I think that Containers should really work. I think your observation is a good one, and a rule for it should be added (or actually the third rule should be modified). [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16866086 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16866086

pritambaral 8y ago

I think you would like the Temporary Containers extension even more if you've been using Containers to keep logged in Facebook out. To automatically open Facebook links in a logged-in, dedicated-to-FB container is the entire point of this extension. After all, it was built for regular, non-tech-savvy people. To such people, it'd be a bad experience if suddenly they could no longer open FB links sent to them by their friends (because links to FB posts can have non-public visibility).