20 ms·

Facebook Container for Firefox

• tibbydudeza 6y ago
  Just easier to stop using Facebook.
  • names_are_hard 6y ago
    If you find ceasing all use of Facebook easier than installing an extension in Firefox, you're probably part of a very small minority.
  • imhoguy 6y ago
    Isn't it tracking you anyway with all these Like(TM) buttons spread around?
• cooljacob204 6y ago
  I'm finding more and more that it might finally be time to switch back to Firefox. Is Google still planning to destroy adblock with Manifest V3?
  • carlhjerpe 6y ago
    I'm finding more and more that i want to move to a Chrome fork (Brave) but TreeStyleTabs (Sidebery) keeps me with FF.
    • datfrojo 6y ago
      What advantages does brave have other than their weird ad replacement thing? I’ve weirdly moved to Microsoft edge from Firefox for something’s recently. Unfortunately the chrome developer tools are awful.
      • Macha 6y ago
        Chromium browser which still generally has a performance edge, but without some types of Google's tracking like the browser level sign in or the recent example of Google exempting themselves from clear cookies.
        • LocalPCGuy 6y ago
          I use both quite a bit and do not notice any difference in performance. You may be able to tell via benchmarks, but real-world performance is very similar.
        • Tagbert 6y ago
          But is that performance difference actually important? I can accept a minor impact as a tradeoff to support a more diverse ecosystem and weaken the Google monolith just a little.
      • buzzerbetrayed 6y ago
        > Unfortunately the chrome developer tools are awful You are literally the first person I've ever heard say this. I've heard a ton of people say they want to switch to Firefox, but can't leave the Chrome dev tools behind. Mind telling us why you find Firefox dev tools superior?
        • Dahoon 6y ago
          Edge has better tools too.
    • neiman 6y ago
      Is it possible to publish extension to Brave without Google authorizing it? As an extension builder I tried in the past and didn't manage to do that.
      • jaywalk 6y ago
        No, Brave still uses the Chrome Web Store.
    • wakkaflokka 6y ago
      I stay with Firefox for a lot of reasons, but the main one is this - I am so used to TreeStyleTabs I can't imagine going with anything else. Do any other browsers support something similar?
      • worble 6y ago
        The TST repo actually has a number of similar projects for Chromium and specifically Vivaldi on it's repo: https://github.com/piroor/treestyletab#similar-projects https://github.com/piroor/treestyletab#similar-projects
      • wruza 6y ago
        Opera has tree tabs extension (which I'm using for a long time, but only for really threaded sessions), chrome idk. Not sure how much different it is, but the basic functionality you'd expect from tree editor is there.
    • gnicholas 6y ago
      I love Brave and use the Sidewise extension to mimic TST. [1] It isn't perfect though. My main issues are that it's a separate window so sometimes clicking on the side window or the main window draws focus instead of clicking the thing under my cursor. Also the search bar in the sidebar keeps getting accidentally activated when I hit command-T. So I ended up inspecting and deleting the element. It's not the most elegant solution, but it works well enough. I've tried FF a couple times a year ever since Quantum came out, but on my MBP it's just much slower than Brave. 1: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/sidewise-tree-style-tabs/biiammgklaefagjclmnlialkmaemifgo?hl=en https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/sidewise-tree-styl...
      • carlhjerpe 6y ago
        I've given it a show but sadly it doesn't satisfy my needs. Firefox will have to stick for now. Eventually I'll probably end up on Brave.
    • fudged71 6y ago
      I switched to Vivaldi (Chrome fork) as a dedicated browser for Roam Research and associated chrome extensions, but I've been using it more and more.
  • mmohtasim 6y ago
    Encrypted SNI is another feature which is completely absent in chrome but available in firefox.
    • ukd1 6y ago
      That and the containers are why I'm back on Firefox!
    • tialaramex 6y ago
      Work on Encrypted Client Hello (the current iteration of encrypted SNI) continues and you should anticipate that Chrome will deploy it as the draft approaches Last Call perhaps next year. Because of the Don't Stand Out principle one of the most important factors for success of ECH is the deployment of ECH GREASE, which is to say, willing clients just claiming they want to do ECH even when talking to servers that don't really have any hidden services at all. Chrome's participation in that probably makes a real difference to whether anybody actually tries to block it.
    • makeworld 6y ago
      Worth noting that it's currently disabled by default. You can enable it by going to about:config and setting network.security.esni.enabled to true.
  • Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
    The time to switch back to Firefox was years ago. But better late than never.
    • acolumb 6y ago
      The only asterisk to that statement would be if OP was a Mac user. Using Firefox for reddit and youtube nets me 4 hours of battery life on a 2020 13 inch MacBook Pro, while safari will get my 6.5-8 hours with the same usage.
      • Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
        Some years ago Firefox was near-unusable on MacBooks because it started spinning fans like crazy after a few minutes, eating battery in 30 minutes. But it had improved immensely since that time. Speaking of Safari, maybe it's a matter of preference or habit, but for me it's has a very weird UX
      • wejick 6y ago
        It's because mac doesn't support vp8 hardware decoding. use this extension to force youtube to use h264 https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/h264ify/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/h264ify/ Blame apple
        • laksdjfkasljdf 6y ago
          > Blame apple and Google, for not doing the minimum thing they could have done and served you the best encoding for the platform. It is almost if the companies you actually give you money to (or eyeballs) do not care at all for your interests.
• StavrosK 6y ago
  I'm loving Firefox Containers for various use cases, but is running Google/Facebook in them worth the extra hassle if you use uBO/Privacy Badger? It blocks all that stuff anyway.
  • ProAm 6y ago
    uBO barely works on facebook these days. Try and use the element picker.
    • StavrosK 6y ago
      What do you mean? I just visited a site and uBO blocked FB fine.
      • satyanash 6y ago
        As in, it doesn't block most stuff automatically. You need to pick them using the element picker manually. And even that doesn't stick all the time.
        • StavrosK 6y ago
          Are you talking about stuff on the Facebook website? I'm talking about blocking Facebook tracking on other sites.
          • ProAm 6y ago
            I was talking about on the facebook website.
        • fwn 6y ago
          I think that one of you is talking about network filters and the other is talking about cosmetic filters. Cosmetic filters are a bit hard right now, due to Facebooks effort to obscure them. Network filters are as easy and as reliable as ever though.
    • 6y ago
• residentfoam 6y ago
  Looking forward to a Google Container
  • mtmail 6y ago
    I use https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/google-container/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/google-contai... for a year now. Works as expected.
  • dyingkneepad 6y ago
    https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/multi-account-containers/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/multi-account... You're welcome.
    • bigbubba 6y ago
      The reason Facebook Container exists is because the UX of the generic version is awful. Trying to created a new container to always open a site with has something like half a dozen steps. And of course we won't get a dedicated 'Google Container' from Mozilla because despite all their hot talk they know what side their bread is buttered on.
      • dyingkneepad 6y ago
        "ctrl + ." or just click the container button on the top right Select "always open this site in".
        • bigbubba 6y ago
          You're missing quite a few steps. I just ran through this process to ensure I didn't miss anything: 1) Visit the site. 2) Click the container button or use the shortcut. 3) Click 'Manage Containers' 4) Click 'New Container' 5) Name the container, click 'Ok' 6) Open the multi-account containers panel again. 7) Click 'Always Open This Site in...' 8) Select your new container. But wait, you're still not done! 9) Open the site again in a new tab. 10) Check the 'Remember my decision for this site' box. (Didn't I already tell it to ALWAYS open the site in that container, in step 7?) 11) Click 'Open in [your container] Container' That's how you create a new container to always open a site in with the Multi-Account Containers extension.
• luc_ 6y ago
  I've been using this for a while... would recommend!
• krullix 6y ago
  I love this Facebook container. Love to see the Facebook container mark also on other websites trying to track me. I also use the Firefox multi-account containers to set a temporary container for every new tab. To not lose logins etc I'm websites I visit frequently, I set up dedicated containers for those. Work very well. Anyone else with experience of the Firefox multi-account container extension?
  • bonestamp2 6y ago
    > Love to see the Facebook container mark also on other websites trying to track me. In fairness, some of those sites might not even know the like button is used for tracking and just think it's for helping them grow their facebook audience.
  • idreyn 6y ago
    Was just coming back to this thread to say I use the Multi-Account Containers extension to isolate my Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, and Google Search sessions from the rest of my web browsing, and I highly recommend it. The terminology is a little confusing: Containers or "Container Tabs" is a session-management tool that's baked into Firefox, while Multi-Account Containers is an extension on top of that that allows you to automatically sort specific domains into containers, so when I open e.g. a YouTube link it automatically appears in a YouTube container, which knows nothing about my Google account. IMO the functionality of the extension (which was written by Mozilla) should be added to the browser itself. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-GB/firefox/addon/multi-account-containers/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-GB/firefox/addon/multi-account...
    • InvaderFizz 6y ago
      Does this work for separating Google accounts? Right now I use safari, chrome, firefox, and edge to keep the four identities I use for different projects separate thanks to Google not playing nice at all with the GCP account you are using not being the primary Google Signin.
      • jaflo 6y ago
• pkage 6y ago
  Anyone know if there's an integration with Tree Style Tabs[0]? They're a gamechanger for browsing the web, and it'd be nice to see what tabs are contained. [0]: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/tree-style-tab/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/tree-style-ta...
  • OJFord 6y ago
    I switched my sidebar tab add-on to Sidebery [0], and that's actually what got me to start using containers (not the other way around). I have a 'home' container (= sidebar 'tab' of tabs), 'personal code' container (ditto), 'finance' (ditto), and 'work' (ditto). It's not even really that I want to silo their data from each other (I have uMatrix - yes I know, will probably switch to nuTensor - and autocookie delete etc. anyway) - but the organisation into contexts I can easily switch between is amazing. [0]: https://github.com/mbnuqw/sidebery https://github.com/mbnuqw/sidebery
  • mouldysammich 6y ago
    Itll show a color next to the tab to indicate that its in a container
  • kej 6y ago
    In addition to showing the container color, the context menu options to reopen a tab in a container work just fine with tree style tabs.
  • liminal 6y ago
    I think you want Container Tabs Sidebar: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/container-tabs-sidebar/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/container-tab...
• JadoJodo 6y ago
  A few others: - Temporary Containers[0] - Google Container[1] - Google Container w/ Integrations (YouTube, AdTech, Apps, etc)[2] - Reddit Container[3] There are a few others[4] as well, but I've found the Temporary Containers solves the 80%. -- [0] - https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/temporary-containers/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/temporary-con... [1] - https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/google-container https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/google-contai... [2] - https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/google-contain-integrations https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/google-contai... [3] - https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/contain-reddit https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/contain-reddi... [4] - https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/search/?q=Container https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/search/?q=Container
  • AdmiralAsshat 6y ago
    You can make all of these yourself as long as you've got the Temporary Containers add-on installed. I don't see the benefit of installing four addons for this purpose, as the security risk of third-party addon vendors surely outweighs the convenience of a pre-configured container.
    • Spivak 6y ago
      Has temporary containers gotten the feature to drop the container when leaving the target sites? That's the main difference for me. If I'm in FB Messenger and click an external link I don't want that link to be opened in the FB container.
      • nextos 6y ago
        I use per-domain isolation, so I don't run into this issue. However, I need 2 manual persistent containers for sites that are broken with per-domain isolation (Gmail and Outlook 365). Both visit many different domains after login. Within those containers, I need to be careful not to click on external links, but to open them in a new temporary container.
      • 6y ago
• helsinkiandrew 6y ago
  Presumably if Facebook really wanted to track you they could associate requests from the same IP and request signature (user-agent/accepts etc)
  • yurishimo 6y ago
    This doesn't work as well though for things like university campuses or large companies where many people may be using a single IP and identical hardware. I would bet $100 FB does geolocate your IP to determine if it's likely a single residence or a larger multi-user building, and likely tracks that, but that misses a large chunk of their user base. Imagine the number of people who use FB as a distraction at work or in class, but might not use it as much at home.
• welder 6y ago
  I already do this manually using Profiles/People in Chrome. Containers look much better and more seamless though. I wonder, does this fix the Google reCAPTCHA problem with using multiple browser profiles?
  • thinkharderdev 6y ago
    Yeah, I've tried to do the multi-profile thing in Chrome and always ended up giving up in disgust after a while because the UX is hard to deal with. Lately I've just been using different browsers for different "profiles" (social media, work, general internet browsing, etc) with. Between Safari, Chrome, Chrome Canary, FF, FF Nightly you can have a lot of different "profiles" and using something like https://www.choosyosx.com https://www.choosyosx.com the day-to-day UX is not bad.
• wodenokoto 6y ago
  What’s the way to set this up for custom domains? I basically only want to be logged into my mail, Facebook HN and twitch (and they don’t need to share tracking cookies) and have everything else happen in a no-cookies stored environment. But do I need a container extension for each of those sites or what is the deal here? And do I exit the container when I click a link to another domain?
  • gruez 6y ago
    multi account containers. it allows you to create containers and automatically open sites in them.
  • francis_t_catte 6y ago
    There's the Multi-Account Containers addon for this: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/multi-account-containers/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/multi-account... And also the Temporary Containers addon if you want cookies, local storage, and history cleared automatically: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/temporary-containers/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/temporary-con...
  • deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
• president 6y ago
  There are still other ways they can identify you based on typing and mouse movement patterns or other heuristics and fingerprinting techniques. Or they can purchase this information from one of the many 3rd party adtech companies that are also tracking and building shadow profiles on people.
• mmcclure 6y ago
  I use Firefox multi-account containers[1] extensively, it's honestly the primary reason I use Firefox these days. The big win for me is that I _hate_ having to use the Google account switcher, so I basically set up a container for each Gmail account (work, personal, old email, etc). The nice bonus feature is you can have certain sites default to containers. I had a paid YouTube account for a while, for example, so having any YouTube link open in my personal account was nice for not getting hit with ads on initial click due to my default Gmail not being the right one. There's also a plugin[2] that will make any new tab default to whatever the first tab listed is. Really great for if you want to have a whole browser window dedicated to one container. [1] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/multi-account-containers/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/multi-account... [2] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/sticky-window-containers/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/sticky-window...
  • neycoda 6y ago
    Why do you hate the Google account switched for Gmail? It keeps all of my Gmail-attached sites isolated in Chrome and is easy to use on desktop (non-existent on Android Chrome unfortunately).
  • moritonal 6y ago
    I use it to split my work and my personal GitHub accounts!
    • jacksonlango 6y ago
      Do you use windows? I found that having multiple GitHub account is infuriating on windows because it forces you to go into an obscure security manager to delete a record in order to switch which account your using. Never found a way around it.
      • timvdalen 6y ago
        I had never heard of this so I just tried to reproduce this - I have no trouble logging into two separate GitHub accounts in different Chrome profiles. What makes Firefox profiles different?
• marketingtech 6y ago
  This is definitely convenient for now, but the shifting browser ecosystem (along with default security changes in Safari and proposed changes in Chrome) is driving the development and adoption of server-side tracking solutions. This is great for the short-term, but I imagine it won't be relevant much longer. There's a reason why Segment just sold for $3.2 billion... [edited to add: They offer a single integration point and will proxy your data server-side to hundreds of other companies.]
  • anticristi 6y ago
    Indeed, I'm getting increasingly skeptical that a technical solution is sufficient to fighting surveillance capitalism. Looking forward to see some serious GDPR fines.
    • yowlingcat 6y ago
      Agreed. I'm hoping to see more analogous stateside laws like California's CCPA as well.
      • deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      • anticristi 6y ago
        Apparently, Japan, Brazil and Canada is following suite.
  • paulv 6y ago
    Couldn't you block all requests to Segment's integration point?
    • marketingtech 6y ago
      They use CNAME aliasing to make the requests seem like they're coming from your own domain, so you'd have block a specific URL on a site-by-site basis, and there are also fully server-side APIs so you don't even know when data is being captured or shared.
• oldandboring 6y ago
  I use the 'Containerise' plugin along with the following configuration (which I am constantly tweaking) to keep the big tech companies isolated from each other and the rest of the web. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/containerise/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/containerise/ I'm also increasingly using it to keep their various properties isolated from each other (eg. keeping Bing separate from the rest of Microsoft) to reduce tracking even further. !*.atlassian.net , Atlassian !*.bing.com , Microsoft Bing !*.bitbucket.org , Atlassian !*.github.com , Github !*.google.com , Google !*.imdb.com , Amazon Home/Personal !*.linkedin.com , Microsoft LinkedIn !*.live.com , Microsoft !*.microsoft.com , Microsoft !*.nytimes.com , New York Times !*.reddit.com , Reddit !*.twitter.com , Twitter !*.youtube.com , Google amazon.com , Amazon Home/Personal console.aws.amazon.com , Amazon AWS music.amazon.com , Amazon Home/Personal news.ycombinator.com , Hacker News smile.amazon.com , Amazon Home/Personal www.amazon.com , Amazon Home/Personal You get the idea. Really powerful.
  • pkulak 6y ago
    Oh wow. I used containers for a while, but the official plugin for managing them was awful. You had to go to the site, set the container, then click an approve button the _next_ time you went to it. Took forever to get things set up, and it never synced the settings despite claiming it would. I'm going to give this one a try. Thanks!
    • Mandatum 6y ago
      > but the official plugin for managing them was awful I wish we'd stop being so hard on products. It's likely those developers read these comments. Having babies be called ugly by your peers is rough, actively trying to be more respectful on the internet leads to a nicer industry. EDIT: Just to clarify - I'm not saying your intention was disrespectful. I've written many comments similar to this, and continue to do so, but I've started to try and curb it because I imagine it's what YouTubers feel like reading their comments section.. But this is by our own peers in our industry.
      • 6y ago
• fractalf 6y ago
  I solved this another way. Last week I #deletefacebook :) ..so long and thanks for all the fish
  • AdamTReineke 6y ago
    Don't they still track people even without an account?
• iamdamian 6y ago
  I love the general idea behind the container (sandboxed browsing). However, I'm not clear on the exact privacy benefit relative to the much easier path of blocking 3rd party cookies in your browser of choice and installing uBlock Origin. What specific tracking is no longer possible using containers that is currently possible if you're using one or both of those protections? Is it something about 3rd party scripts that uBlock Origin doesn't block by default and that don't require 3rd party cookies? I'm not looking for a general answer about containment or sandboxing or a nice user experience for separating environments or profiles; I'm looking for a precise attack/tracking vector that makes this worth switching browsers for.
  • Angeo34 6y ago
    Fingerprinting
  • DangerousPie 6y ago
    It's my understanding that if you're logged into Facebook and visit a website that uses Facebook's APIs (the Like button etc) then your pageview will get tied to your profile. Even if you don't actually interact with it in any way. If you isolate your session with Facebook container then they can only tie your pageviews to an anonymous profile and will have a much harder time tracking you across devices, connections, etc.
  • abdullahkhalids 6y ago
    Here is an example. This page [1] has stuff from google loaded that is not blocked by a combination of Ublock Origin and Privacy Badger; for instance google fonts (other stuff from Google, Twitter and Facebook is blocked). If I ever log into Google, then my activity on this page will be linked to my account. If I containarize my Google account, then I guess Google can only use my IP or very advanced tricks to attach this activity to my account. [1] https://www.sportsbettingdime.com/news/nfl/week-7-opening-lines-and-spreads/ https://www.sportsbettingdime.com/news/nfl/week-7-opening-li...
    • fsflover 6y ago
      > or very advanced tricks Like those: https://panopticlick.eff.org https://panopticlick.eff.org.
• cortesoft 6y ago
  If they have this ability, why doesn't every website get its own 'container tab'?
  • thinkharderdev 6y ago
    By default? It can break a lot things that people expect to work and can make browsing the web slightly more annoying (harder recapcthas etc). You can enable first-party site isolation in your Firefox preferences which will effectively provider a container for each site (as far as I understand). But it's pretty annoying at times.
    • OJFord 6y ago
      In terms of cookies that's effectively the same yes. To deal with the annoying breaks, assuming the fix you want is 'just make it work', there's at least one add-on available that just gives you a toolbar button to toggle it on or off, a fish bowl that glows red as a warning when off.
  • Macha 6y ago
    This is effectively first party isolation. It's buried in about:config as it breaks too many sites apparently
• ralphc 6y ago
  Other than convenience, what, if anything, do containers have over doing what I do - always opening a private window/incognito in Chrome, go to facebook and log in?
  • jniedrauer 6y ago
    Persistence. If you log into a website in a container, cookies will be stored locally within the context of the container. Those cookies can't be used to track you on other sites outside the container, but they do fulfill their purpose within the container.
  • OJFord 6y ago
    Primarily, it's not 'other than convenience', because that's huge. But to actually answer: you can remember cookies etc., they're just only accessible within that container silo, versus private/incognito windows where they're deleted (by design) when you close that tab.
  • eptcyka 6y ago
    You can only open one private session, you can have as many containers as you want. With the caveat that you can probably spawn multiple chrome sessions each with a different profile, but then each session will have it's own bespoke config and (lack of) extensions. I dearly wish that I was able to purge cookies/local storage on a per-container basis.
• ajvs 6y ago
  If you enable the First-Party Isolation preference in about:config then this is more effective site isolation and is automatic for all sites.
  • liminal 6y ago
    Are there downsides to this? Settings aren't usually hidden in about:config without a reason
  • jonnytran 6y ago
    Do you use this for every day browsing? Does it break anything?
    • ffpip 6y ago
      Yes.No, it does not break anything for me, and I browse a ton of websites.
• kevin_b_er 6y ago
  > The Facebook Container Extension is currently only available for Firefox for Desktop.
• INTPenis 6y ago
  I love Firefox containers. Can also recommend cookie auto-delete. It's honestly not that bad if you whitelist sites you use a lot.
• sdwolfz 6y ago
  I've been using Multi Account Containers for a while now (years probably) and they do provide good value but things can still be improved. What I think Firefox lacks right now is good UX around switching profiles. Sure `about:profiles` works, but it's hard to access, looks ugly, and prone to miss-clicking. Here is my workflow: - Normal browsing: not logged in, no containers. - YouTube: have an "Entertainment" container for it and use it logged out since Google signs you on all their property, and I don't want to mix my entertainment history with my educational history. - Social media: have a "Social" container where I access all the data harvesters. - Logged in: For anything that I need to be signed up, a "Personal" container, so I can check my email in peace. - Work: here's the catch, this needs it's own profile. Since "YouTube" is set to always open in the "Entertainment" account, and I don't want work related videos pop up when relaxing, and vice-versa, I can switch profiles and have everything completely isolated in my "Work" profile. And in case I need to, I can set up more containers in this profile. Also there are different add-ons I need for my own setup compared to work, or the same add-on with different configuration. So just containers won't do here. My point is, if Firefox had a profile switcher as easy to use as Chromium had, my life would be way better. Profiles and Containers seem to complement each other. They just need a truckload of polish. Some things that annoy me right now: - There is no dedicated UI for profile CRUD. And an add-on won't work for this since it needs to be available and enabled by default across profiles. - "Reopen in container" opens a new tab instead of replacing the current. - Having keybindings for the two above would be extremely useful. - For some reason, Firefox lacks the functionality to change the ordering of stuff (in general, but more specifically profiles and containers). The creation order is all you get. - A quick way to do "clear cookies/data in this container only" so I don't need to delete/recreate the container and mess up my ordering (which I can not change). Also clear data for non container use without clearing data in containers. Basically treating non container use as a "Default" container. - All of the above I wish came by default with Firefox and not from an add-on. My honest opinion is that they are crucial functionality and deserve to be made aesthetically pleasing and available for everyone to use.
• Filligree 6y ago
  I tried creating an account this way, but it promptly got banned, with no ability to appeal. I guess they don't want my business. Good thing I gave it a few days before connecting the Quest.
• nuggien 6y ago
  I've been using this, but it seems to break any sites that use facebook login, so it's pretty annoying to have to disable the extension whenever I need to login to a site that only has facebook login.
  • jperras 6y ago
    There isn't much point to using the Facebook container if you're using FB login in enough places that you get annoyed by it.
  • mozillamaxx 6y ago
    Facebook Container dev here. It breaks those sites because the extension blocks all Facebook resources (and tracking) from loading on non-Facebook sites. To use Facebook login on a site, you'll need to add the website to the Facebook Container. Follow the directions from the docs[1]. This will stop you from having to turn the extension on and off entirely. [1] https://github.com/mozilla/contain-facebook/blob/master/docs/container-management.md https://github.com/mozilla/contain-facebook/blob/master/docs...
  • timbit42 6y ago
    This plugin is for increasing privacy. If you're using FB login on non-FB websites, you've already given up your privacy.
• leandron 6y ago
  Is this possible to request data facebook (potentially) have on you, even if you don't have an account? (I deleted mine about 5 years ago...) Answering my own question: Yes you can -> https://www.facebook.com/help/contact/2032834846972583 https://www.facebook.com/help/contact/2032834846972583
  • jzer0cool 6y ago
    that's a useful link. is similar link from other giants like google?
• grishka 6y ago
  Is there anything similar for Chromium-based browsers?
  • jamesgeck0 6y ago
    Closest thing I know about is the built-in "people" feature.
  • dmarinus 6y ago
    I use the SessionBox extension and let chrome remove all cookies at shutdown.
• mrbonner 6y ago
  I recently switched to Edge on my iphone because it has adblock by default. Firefox doesn't have the adblocking ability. Then, I switched to Edge on my MacOS as well because I want to maintain my bookmarks sync between the 2 devices. I would definitely go back to Firefox if it has adblock in iOS.
  • jmnicolas 6y ago
    The best adblocking extension is uBlock origin and is available on Firefox Android and desktop. I can't speak for iOS though.
  • jamesgeck0 6y ago
    Firefox iOS has a "Tracking Protection" feature which will block ads that do more aggressive tracking. It's on by default but I recommend toggling it onto strict mode for best results. You can also use Firefox Focus to apply the same functionality to the default Safari browser. The thing with the most potential on iOS is Lockdown, a local-only firewall which filters network connections from any application. It'll break apps like Facebook Messenger if you turn on all the options. But again, it's focused on trackers, not ads specifically.
• fsuuttg 6y ago
  I'm a little late to the party. What are those containers really? One feature that web really needs can be called a "container" or an advanced iframe. That super-iframe would allow to intercept or change the global JS API for the underlying site and everything that app transitively loads. For example, the site wants to use getUserMedia for tracking? Fine, because the container it's in has replaced getUserMedia with a mock, in a way not detectable by the site. This would allow to see what JS API the site uses. This would effectively kill fingerprinting.
• iamAtom 6y ago
  I wish we have the same for Android apps as well. I don't want random Apps to have full access to my storage instead it can have it's own space.
  • wruza 6y ago
    And a special Inbox folder with a sticky bit where other apps could put their files to open in that app.
• trey-jones 6y ago
  On the one hand, I've been using Facebook exclusively in Incognito/Private mode for years. On the other hand, I haven't logged into Facebook for months. Maybe just because of the upcoming election though.
• jmnicolas 6y ago
  Browser finger printing will defeat this. I wonder how prevalent it is. Most of the sites I visit seem not to recognize me without cookies but I always wonder if it's just a "ploy" to make me feel untracked. While I'm at it, anyone has good resources on how not to be finger printed (without going full Tor browser)? Do I have to disable Javascript?
  • welfare 6y ago
    Hi, I did my thesis on browser fingerprinting. Most algorithms that build profiles and look for combinations of features that are unique. The best way to hide your fingerprint is to be as similar to everyone as possible. So that means use as much of the standards as possible that comes with the OS. Do not use anything that would not be considered mainstream (e.g. don't be the only person from Guatemala on Opera, Linux, DVORAK Keyboard using an odd screen resolution.) The absolute hardest thing to create a browser fingerprint on is corporate laptops as they have identical setups!
    • kelnos 6y ago
      Does changing things often also help? Like, if there was a way to set things up so the browser would randomly change (on every request, or maybe every N minutes) bits of your user-agent, font list, screen resolution, etc., would that make it harder for sites to track you?
      • welfare 6y ago
        The rate of change is of course an important factor, but some things like the order of how you installed fonts (which depends on the order you installed the software that fonts came with) or the plugins you have installed in your browser are still going to be constant. What we saw was that people tried to spoof their UA only made it more unique. (E.g. your UA says Internet Explorer but you have Chrome specific plugins). Or even worse if you have a completely unique User Agent.
        • autoexec 6y ago
• JohnBooty 6y ago
  I absolutely love the containers feature in general, and the Facebook one in particular. One severe use case limitation (for me) involves using containers to separate work/home accounts. I am a developer, so I do a lot of screen sharing / presenting. Theoretically, I could use Firefox containers to separate things into "work" and "personal." However, all containers have a shared autocomplete history for the URL bar. 1. Suppose I visit "GirlsXXX.com" in my "Personal" container 2. The next day at work, I am screen-sharing and using my "Work" container 3. I type in "github.com" so that I can visit Github.com 4. As I type "g-i-t-h-u-b", "GirlsXXX.com" will be one of the autocomplete suggestions after I've types "g" and "gi"
  • dotancohen 6y ago
    To be fair, both Girls and Git have the concept of commitment. And I've got an extensive .girlsignore file. But under no circumstances should a push be tried on the former, especially if a gentle pull does not succeed.
    • luc_ 6y ago
      don't quit your day job ;)
  • imhoguy 6y ago
    I keep all job related stuff in separate desktop VM and only ever share that window over Zoom/MSTeams/Slack on the host system (better native pref). No surprises in years.
• 0-_-0 6y ago
  To do this for all sites you can enable First Party Isolation if Firefox by toggling privacy.firstparty.isolate in about:config, or have a UI button that toggles is through an addon [1]. I've been using it for years and it only seems to break some payment processors, and only rarely. [1] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-GB/firefox/addon/first-party-isolation/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-GB/firefox/addon/first-party-i...
  • smichel17 6y ago
    > I've been using it for years and it only seems to break some payment processors, and only rarely. The majority of cookies don't break much at all. Or at least not that I notice; I've been blocking all cookies, including first party, for a few months, using uMatrix. Obviously you need them for logins[1]. You need them on Twitter to view the old version of the site that doesn't require js. On YouTube, to view comments. To follow some redirects on the Android developer docs site. [1] ...mostly. Some actually store all the login info in js state (and presumably localstorage?).
• jedberg 6y ago
  I've been using containers on Firefox for a long time now. And I love it. But my biggest issue is Firefox performance on MacOS. The only reason it's not my primary browser is because Safari is just so much better. What I wonder is, is this just me, or does everyone have this problem?
  • barbs 6y ago
    I use Firefox on Mac, but I don't notice any performance hits. At least not compared to Chrome, or browsers on other operating systems. I don't use Safari so maybe I don't know what I'm missing out on. What performance issues specifically do you notice?
    • jedberg 6y ago
      The two main things I notice: Some websites basically crash the computer on Firefox but run fine on Safari. Mostly JS heavy sites. The energy usage of Firefox is way higher than Safari, which in turns makes my fans spin a lot harder. Basically some sites will peg the CPU and hit max fan speed, but the same site just sips energy on Safari. Video streaming is a prime example of this. I can use twitch on Safari and it uses maybe 30% CPU. Twitch on Firefox uses 150% CPU.
      • shock 6y ago
        > Some websites basically crash the computer What does "crash the computer" mean? Do you get the MacOS equivalent of a BSOD?
        • toyg 6y ago
          Disclaimer: Firefox is my daily driver. There are sites that just make FF spike its CPU usage, I guess through rogue JS, and if you let them run they’ll make macOS stutter (this on a beefy 2016 mbp). Sadly, some of these are big names like new Reddit and new Facebook.
          • 6y ago
• turkey99 6y ago
  We shouldn’t need to engineer around this. The fact this is needed shows Facebook wrongdoing.
• moallabbad 6y ago
  Speaking of Firefox containers, I created an extension that adds an extra layer of convenience. The extension lets you create a default page for each container; something like a homepage for each container. It’s called‘Container Default Pages’ [0] One thing the Multi-Account-Container does is allow you to redirect a website to open in a specific container. My extension gives the extra feature of assigning the container itself to a default website. The main use case is when you have a container dedicated to say, YouTube, it makes sense that when you open a new tab in your ‘YouTube Container’ it should go directly to YouTube. Of course you can open other things but the extension provides a convenient default behavior. [0] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/container-default-pages/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/container-def...
• qwerty456127 6y ago
  Why do we need it, given we already have containers built-in (I mean in Firefox)?
• purplecats 6y ago
  if they were a serious threat, im sure facebook would just _easily_ murder them.
  • as_keyof_typeof 6y ago
    What is that even supposed to mean?
• bradgessler 6y ago
  Safari has this figured out from a UX point-of-view with their concept of “website settings”. I wish other browsers would steal this idea and run with it because “containers” and “switching profiles” doesn’t mean much to users or isn’t the best experience. If you haven’t in a while, go check out “Settings for websites” on Safari desktop and mobile. It’s some pretty sane and reasonable stuff.
• btbuildem 6y ago
  Nice. I use Firefox as my FB container (all the other web activity happens in Chrome). This is good to see.
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• dotancohen 6y ago
  I am hard pressed to think of any other website in the 25 year history of the WWW that was so abusive of its users that web browsers had to start inventing features to protect user from it.
  • buzzerbetrayed 6y ago
    www.google.com seems like the obvious answer.
    • asdff 6y ago
      https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/google-container/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/google-contai...
  • kbrosnan 6y ago
    Any website from mid 90s through early 2000s when popups were the dominate way to deliver ads to users. Want to say Yahoo services and just about any local news site were good examples but it has been 20 years. Browsers added popup/popunder blocking settings that exist to this day which neutered that ad revenue model.
  • TrackerFF 6y ago
    When you're the only drug dealer in town, you can treat your customers however you want. They'll keep coming back.
  • mastazi 6y ago
    Google, Twitter, Reddit, Amazon, Medium, the list goes on (there is a Container extension for each one of them). Special mentions for polluting search results: Quora, Pinterest
• one2know 6y ago
  How does this stop facebook from tracking you? I'm fairly certain that on facebook, google, everyone, etc tracking is largely through processing request logs to gstatic.com or fbcdn.net for example with a referrer header saying what site you are visiting, your source IP and various other things to fingerprint the request.
  • buzzerbetrayed 6y ago
    > various other things to fingerprint the request Isn't this exactly how it prevents FB from tracking you? Those "various other things" that it uses will all be different between different containers. I think the source IP thing is a valid point, which is why other commenters have pointed out that you can force your FB container to connect through a proxy, while your other containers don't.
    • one2know 6y ago
      Timestamps, IP, and user agent are probably enough to reconstruct the user visit. Chrome is now sending a browser generated fingerprint x-client-data to all Google's domains while of course they will be trying to end use of referer header for everyone else. They are shameless and think people are dumb. Mobile carriers are injecting their own fingerprint headers into outgoing http requests as well if not using https.
      • pushrax 6y ago
        TIL about x-client-data. It looks even worse than user-agent, it's completely unique per user. I think you mean user-agent rather than referer?
  • NiceWayToDoIT 6y ago
    I have the same question and I agree. Combination of IP, timestamp, fonts, user-agent, screen-size ... can identify you so only advantage I see is that if you have multiple accounts you could log to all of them. Correct?
• aeturnum 6y ago
  Just FYI, I installed this and immediately got trapped in a login loop in Facebook. I got logged out of Facebook after installing it (either by the extension or by FB) and then when I log back in FB asks me to "complete the following steps to regain access to your account" with a button that brings me to an error page. They also mention that this behavior was triggered by me having 2FA enabled on my Facebook account. So I'm interested but beware right now (especially 2FA people). Edit: Concerningly, the FB error page still has a 2019 copyright ^_^; Edit 2: This was resolved by using the FB app to verify logins and restored my access in firefox.
• hn3333 6y ago
  Sorry but isn't this trivial to circumvent. Hire me Facebook. I'll get you the usual data back in a day or so. EDIT: I am confused why nobody sees the obvious.
• 0x416c6578 6y ago
  I use ungoogled chromium but I have a script that completely replaces my .config/chromium/ directory with a clean version saved with no cookies/history or anything else saved. that means I can basically roll back any stuff that I do. to update the config (eg for bookmark adding) I just replace the stored clean version with a new clean version created. I have my workflow integrated with starting on the internet with a "clean slate". yes things take a bit longer being signed out but using a password manager mitigates this somewhat. I have never had a problem with resetting my config and have been using the design for at least 2 years worth of chrome updates (with a few " resets" of my safe config)
• srathi 6y ago
  Do the containers and their settings sync across devices as part of Firefox Sync? Last time I tried them, I had to recreate them on each device.
  • xuhu 6y ago
    Yes since version 6.2 from February: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/multi-account-containers/versions/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/multi-account...
• DaniloDias 6y ago
  Tools like this are useful for those suffering from Facebook Stockholm syndrome.
• dheera 6y ago
  Why stop at just Facebook? What about Google, Doubleclick, Disqus, Google Analytics, Twitter and all the others that have embedded widgets all over the web?
  • asdff 6y ago
    https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/multi-account-containers/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/multi-account...
    • dheera 6y ago
      Do you still need Facebook container if you use Multi-Account Container? This is confusing. I haven't used Firefox in years but the idea of containers sounds awesome. I just wish the UI was a little less confusing.
      • asdff 6y ago
        No. Facebook container is basically a fork of multi account container that only quarantines facebook. It's meant for less technical people who might not want to set up their own filtering rules on multi account container.
• axismundi 6y ago
  How bizarre that I desperately try to contain these monsters in digital cages, keeping them on a VPN leash, carefully adding plugins, trying to maintain delicate balance. Sometimes I try too hard, the monsters are offended, throw errors, hide the contents away. Sometimes I miss something, and they devour my privacy bit by bit, unnoticed. I spend sleepless nights scouring the internet for new codes, secret browser options, complex combinations of obscure settings. And when I finally fall asleep, I dream of internet without the monsters.
  • mattei 6y ago
    Well put, the fact this is required is IMO an indictment of what Facebook has turned into. FB are not alone in this.
    • TameAntelope 6y ago
      To be fair, it isn't required. The actual consequences of Facebook having your information has thus far been a benign experience for the vast majority of its subscribers.
  • girder 6y ago
    Beautiful
  • fsflover 6y ago
    Try Qubes OS instead, it gives a great peace of mind.
• jzer0cool 6y ago
  How does the container extension work? Is this just masking browser signatures or something else?
• super_seomis 6y ago
  The ability to use plugins easily on mobile phone. That's why I choose firefox
  • neop1x 6y ago
    Except they limited it with recent Firefox Mobile "updates" or "redesigns". AFAIK the last fully-featured FF Mobile on Android is 68.12.0. I have tried the most recent FF Mobile couple of weeks ago and there were only a small subset of add-ons supported and still no about:config.
    • michel-slm 6y ago
      yeah, I wonder when the Facebook container will make it to mobile - it's one of their own after all so there should be no safety issue.
• crazygringo 6y ago
  I'm confused here about two things, and can't find any answers in the comments. 1) How is this different from a regular Firefox container you use for Facebook? 2) Firefox containers are essentially the same as Chrome profiles, right? I'm just trying to figure out what benefit this has over someone keeping Facebook inside a separate profile in Chrome. If Mozilla's trying to attract people from Chrome... I feel like they need to be a bit clearer on what precisely Mozilla provides that Chrome doesn't?
  • animal_spirits 6y ago
    For 1: I'm pretty sure the regular firefox containers are an extension of the Facebook container. As I recall, Firefox first rolled out the Facebook container for Facebook + Instagram, and then later rolled out Multi-account containers which allowed user defined rules for custom containers For 2: I'm not familiar with Chrome profiles, but Firefox has profiles as well. And with Firefox you can set up different container settings for different profiles. So you can have container settings for a "Home" profile and a separate container settings for a "Work" profile
• nashashmi 6y ago
  I Wish sites could be opened in specific containers via bookmarks
• m1117 6y ago
  I proudly give them all my data, I want big tech to make money and get better products.
  • autoexec 6y ago
    It's not just tech making money The data companies collect is valuable because it can be used against you. It's not just so that companies can show you ads for things you might be interested in. Surveillance capitalism means that your health insurance rates can increase because big data shows that people in your zip code eat out more often. The data collected is used to create a secret "consumer credit score" which determines things like how long you wait on hold, what stores will tell you their return policy is (their policies for you are not their policies for everyone else) and can mean you're paying more for identical products at the same website than the person next door. If you want companies to make money there are plenty of ways for them to do that without handing over your personal information which will be used for years to secretly exploit and manipulate you in ways you'll never even be aware of.
  • gilrain 6y ago
    I proudly lick the boot of master, it tastes strong like leather.
• mcstafford 6y ago
  This is like finding a technique that will make it safer for your kids to play with the creepy neighbor. You may be better off not playing with the creepy neighbor.
• yona 6y ago
  I don’t use FB but I use the container feature; I keep streaming, social media, banking, separate, for example. And shopping.
• megous 6y ago
  I tried containers for a while, but I didn't really trust the separation, and I also wanted the browser to be separated from my regular homedir/user. So now I have a script to create/remove new UNIX users with a pre-configured firefox profile and a script to run the firefox under that user. It has some quirks, but also some benefits. Mainly that the browser doesn't have access to all files on my computer, and the separation between profiles is enforced by the OS, which I trust more.
• fnord77 6y ago
  the only reason I still use chrome is for my mac's fingerprint reader as 2FA for work systems. there's been a firefox ticket open for this for a while now.
• mmwelt 6y ago
  > "The Facebook Container Extension is currently only available for Firefox for Desktop." I hope this comes to Firefox for Android soon!
• jb775 6y ago
  Is there anything like this to stop (or minimize) Amazon from increasing prices based on the max they think I'll pay? I just got an alert saying my recent Amazon purchase "May have been lost in transit". I went to place a duplicate order only to find each product's price ~15% higher than when I placed my original order. Such a dirtbag pricing strategy....they should call it the monopoly algorithm
• richy_ 6y ago
  Facebook provides a way for advertisers to pass back non-deterimnistic and PII signals to match users offsite of Facebook. ie. without cookies, server-to-server https://developers.facebook.com/docs/marketing-api/conversions-api/ https://developers.facebook.com/docs/marketing-api/conversio...
• ekianjo 6y ago
  > puts people over profit to give everyone more power online. The elephant in the room is the default Google integration in Firefox, I guess? They don't speak too much about that kind of tracking.
• tsjq 6y ago
  What is new? Why is this posted now?
• sbmthakur 6y ago
  Is there any way to stop recording browsing history for a particular container?
• pabs3 6y ago
  Would there be any downsides to Firefox putting every website in its own container by default?
• almog 6y ago
  I have a use case where I'm using 6 different amazon accounts which I'd have loved to use with containers controlled by bookmarks (I use Firefox keyword bookmarks a lot for productivity). The best out of the box way you could do it with Firefox is to setup different profiles and switch between them, however, while there is a many-to-many relationship between website and containers, there is none between bookmarks and containers, thus you'd have to manually switch to the right container. My workaround for this was to setup a thin server that redirects amazon<\d+>.localhost to amazon.com. Then, on Firefox, I bind each amazon(1-6).localhost to its own container and configure it to always open this site in its container. Now every time I type "amazon2" it will open up amazon.com in its right container. Would have wished to have bookmarks granularity as part of Firefox, but for my use case, this is the best I could come up with in few minutes of work.
• ratonroy 6y ago
  GCA10 1 day ago [–] I like Graham's points about overconfidence, peer groups and (judicious amounts of) ignorance, all of which he champions quite strongly. But drilling deeper on "rate of change" is an undervalued element that deserves a closer look. The best innovators are really good at taking Version 1.0 and figuring out what rework will turn it into a better 2.0, and then 2.1, 2.2, 3.0, etc. This is an identifiable skill! It can be cultivated. Once you've got it, the failings of Version 1.0 do not ruin your self-esteem. You just get to work on fixing them. And not enough people think about this systematically. One of my favorite museum stops of all time was the British Library, where a glass case held Paul McCartney's first draft of "Yesterday." You could see, cross-out by cross-out, how a somewhat awkward ballad got turned into a pop classic.
• johnchristopher 6y ago
  Be aware that using this container will prevent websites from displaying Instagram embedded content and things like that.
• Theizestooke 6y ago
  Is it possible to set privacy settings per container (keep cookies or not, delete history), or is that still a universal switch for every tab?
• greyhair 6y ago
  Isn't this old news? I was using Firefox Facebook container for quite some time before I closed out my Facebook account, and that was some time ago. It is a great feature.
• dudus 6y ago
  Since this is the major advantage and draw of using firefox this should be default and not an extension
  • tjpnz 6y ago
    I've already moved most of my immediate family over to Firefox. Would save me from having to do the Facebook rant each year.
• smusamashah 6y ago
  Can it open facebook as an SSB (chrome like desktop app)?
• phatbyte 6y ago
  While I appreciate this kind of solutions, in my brain all I can think is: what the hell is wrong with the web today? I mean, what did we do to ourselves? How the hell did we ruin the web experience this much? Looking back in the 90s, the web wasn't the most pretty thing but how simple it was. You went to a news website and that was it. Click, read, the end. These days however: - Go to a news/content website - wait for the 40MB of useless CSS and JS "minified" crap to download. - Agree with 2 or 3 huge popups to allow collect your data - Get a new popup to make you disable your ad-blocker plugin. And if you disable it, you need to refresh the page all over again. - Get a "subscribe to our newsletter" popup - Get tracked by amazons, facebooks, etc... - And once you finally click on an article.... get another popup to subscribe to their premium paid content... Seriously, we broke the web, and now we are trying to fix it with putting more plugins and tools on top of this problem. I just feel the web is fighting against us and our browsers, and in the end everyone will loose.
  • falcolas 6y ago
    It's the consequence of decades worth of monetization of as much of the internet as possible, fighting against ad saturation/blocking by the users. Additionally, web browsers were never built for easy monetization of web content; being under the control of the end user.
• aarchi 6y ago
  The feature that has kept me from switching to Firefox is history archiving. I like to keep a record of my browsing history using Chromium's “History Trends Unlimited” extension to easily find articles previously read. However, Firefox appears to only record the most recent site access date and there's no similar extension. Does anyone know of an alternative?
• lucasnortj 6y ago
  Just delete all your social media already. It is cancer
• gitowiec 6y ago
  Only for desktop :(