7 ms·

Related: Multi Account Containers - Same thing as the facebook container but more generi - https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/multi-account-contain

Related: Multi Account Containers - Same thing as the facebook container but more generi - https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/multi-account-containers https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/multi-account... Temporary Containers - Same container concept but you can create and destroy them on the fly - https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/temporary-containers https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/temporary-con...

warinukraine 4y ago
Note that Temporary containers is NOT by Mozilla. Just saying...
cypherpunks01 4y ago
These extensions are killer, and are the primary reason I use Firefox. No other browsers have similar functionality at all that I've found. For me, it's the best setup I've found in terms of cookie/session management. By default, I do want every new tab I open to come with a clean slate of no cookies, local storage, SQLite, or whatever other storage/tracking mechanisms are invented. If I need to open up a Google service, I simply open a new tab in my Google container. Combined with a good password manager to quickly login to lower security accounts, it is a marginal increase in work managing sessions, with the benefit of not tracking all your cookies and history around everywhere you go. The features aren't perfect since it's not a workflow optimized for consumer simplicity, but it works for me.
- blakeli12 4y ago
  I agree. Google and Firefox have a high number and quality of plugins, but Google Chrome has a larger market for plugins and it is easier to find plugins for specific features. However, Firefox supports plugins in the WebExtensions format, which is compatible with Google Chrome, but also supports other formats such as XUL and XPCOM that give developers more control
- mixmastamyk 4y ago
  Yes, also you can have FF drop cookies from all sites but a few at the end of the session. I use this on my other computers and for nontechnical friends.
  - rand0mx1 4y ago
    Its buggy https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1767271 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1767271
- sfmike 4y ago
  does anyone know why chrome can't do containers, this is also why i use firefox
  - black_puppydog 4y ago
    It would seem its again the interest of one of the biggest contributors to the open source code base of chromium...
    - charcircuit 4y ago
      For discussion about it. https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/chromium-dev/c/IZ7peQHHWiE https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/chromium-dev/c/IZ... In response to asking about supporting multiple profiles between different tabs. >Extraordinarily difficult. I would expect person-years of effort for this, as the link between profile and window is deeply ingrained throughout the code. Chrome doesn't support containers because it would take a big investment that no one is currently willing to make. Google doesn't want to spend millions of dollars and deprioritize more important work for a niche feature that not that many people benefit from.
      - cute_boi 4y ago
        It is a lie when we know ghost browsers essentially do the same. I think it is just not in the best interest of Google because it might hurt their bottom line i.e. ads.
        hgsgm 4y ago
        You can open a new window for a separate session, just not a new tab.
      - sirsinsalot 4y ago
        I am doubtful about the person-years of effort. It's an indirection.
- aendruk 4y ago
  The key insight for me was that persistence should be opt-in—when I want a website to remember me, I take action to express that—the opposite of the current norm. I sometimes wonder whether Google was strategically preempting this paradigm when they mainstreamed ephemeral sessions under the framing of sneaky mode.
  - hgsgm 4y ago
    The vast majority of people find persistent sessions convenient. If you don't want cookies, you can turn them off for all sites (with exceptions) or for some sites.
    - aendruk 4y ago
      rejecting cookies ≠ giving them a short lifetime Cookies aren’t inherently bad. If a second party asks me to hold on to something while I’m actively engaged with it, that’s typically fine. At the end of the day, though, I’m deciding what to take home.
- ranting-moth 4y ago
  > I do want every new tab I open to come with a clean slate I'd like that too, how can you do that? I've been using Firefox containers for a while. When I open a new tab it opens in the default non-container which carries it's own storage cesspit.
  - _flux 4y ago
    You need to use Temporary Container's shortcut to open the tab, I think extensions cannot override builtin ones.. (And you need Temporary Containers in the first place: that's the bit that creates fresh new containers.) For me the shortcut is alt C.
  - cypherpunks01 4y ago
    The answer is using Temporary Contains with "Automatic Mode" enabled in the preferences. I just opened a new tab normally, with no shortcut, and it automatically created a fresh temp container "tmp2". I logged into HN and replied to this comment. I will close the tab now, and in 5 minutes, due to another Temp Containers setting, everything in the temp container will be wiped. The whole silly "No Container" business goes away entirely. See https://github.com/stoically/temporary-containers/wiki/Automatic-Mode https://github.com/stoically/temporary-containers/wiki/Autom...
plusminusplus 4y ago
They note: > If you are a Multi-Account Containers user who has already assigned Facebook to a Container, this extension will not work (along with workarounds)
alwayslikethis 4y ago
Temporary containers are the final solution to cookie based tracking, just like how forwarding services like Simplelogin (not affiliated) is the final solution to email spam. They have very similar underlying principles: reduce exposure by reducing the power you grant and starting afresh every time to avoid information leakage. With temporary containers, only whitelisted sites can have persistent storage and they are isolated by containers. All other sites can have cookies only within the same session, after which temporary container cookies get cleared. Combined with general content and script blocking solutions like uBlock Origin and resistFingerprinting, we can have reasonably good privacy.. for now at least, until the trackers catch up.
- ComodoHacker 4y ago
  For me the solution is Cookie AutoDelete extension. It allows cookies but silently deletes them (and optionally other storage) after specified amount of time (5 hours for me). So the sites don't break and I don't have to close browser to clear cookies.
- sureglymop 4y ago
  Temporary containers are great but sometimes there are problems with logins or payments where a sote can't redirect back to where it has to. This leads me to temporarily turn off temporary containers which kind of defeats the whole point.
- blakeli12 4y ago
  Facebook Container works by isolating your Facebook identity into a separate container that makes it harder for Facebook to track your visits to other websites with third-party cookies.
adql 4y ago
I was wondering about it, why the hell they develop 2 different container extensions ?
- altairprime 4y ago
  Power users are fickle and they too are, I suspect, power users of Firefox too.
- SanjayMehta 4y ago
  The simpler extension for people only concerned by Facebook's tracking.
- whazor 4y ago
  There is the internal container system in Firefox, and you need an extension to use it. At my work, we use this functionality to login into multiple accounts at once, for the same site.
  - cute_boi 4y ago
    you actually don't need an extension. You can enable container from about:config.
rendaw 4y ago
After reading about it repeatedly here, I finally tried Multi Account Containers and I'm disappointed. I want to press a button and get site X open in container Y. But as it is, after searching for the container, you then have to search for the website you want to open in it separately. It makes having lots of containers hard, plus there's the risk of accidentally opening sites in your "main container", etc. You have to do twice the work for every new site, maintaining bookmarks and containers. There's a function to always open a site in a container, but this obviously falls over if you have multiple accounts (aws, gmail, etc), plus the UI is poorly communicated. There are requests to make it so you can associate a container with a bookmark, for instance, but apparently Moz prevented Moz from doing this via browser apis, and have been powerless to do anything about it for years. It could have been awesome.
- anhner 4y ago
  have you tried right click > open in container > choose container? or right click on the tab > reopen in container > choose container
- rtontic 4y ago
  Another thing you can do, hold left click on the new tab button. You will get a drop-down where you can chose which container to open the tab in.
- jeroenhd 4y ago
  I disagree. I think the current system works great. When the "always open" setting conflicts with a current container, you get a prompt. If you want to open a specific container, long press the create tab button to get a selection of containers so you can browse to the website manually. Using multiple accounts works great for me. Clicking on links will open in the same container, opening the website in a specific container is easy, I don't see the blocker here. I don't know how many containers you intend on using but I don't find the feature problematic at all. Maybe the Tree Style Tabs integration is fixing a problem I don't know about, but it's working great for me.
- climb_stealth 4y ago
  Agreed, it's just a bit too clunky to be practical. In the end I have two containers I actually use, but only for special purposes. One is when I have to log in to facebook and one is for searching with a different language set. Neither of which happens more than once a month at most. So yeah, everything else happens in the main browser as before.
Bombthecat 4y ago
Is there something similar for mobile?
plaguepilled 4y ago
I love these two, but I actually have a third, even more paranoid option for you to ponder: LibreWolf with default settings. It has total cookie protection (meaning tabs don't co-mingle) and u-block origin is on by default. Finally, history is wiped on browser close. This, IMO, is on par with the aforementioned plug ins, but is more "uniform" in the sense that every librewolf install is identical. Additionally, librewolf has WAY less telemetry out of the box than Firefox, which is always nice.
- tecleandor 4y ago
  Truth is the first time I check this, but theoretically it was also deployed by default to Firefox some months ago (and I see it activated in my Nightly install). Have any of you seen/noticed a difference when TCP is enabled? I wasn't paying attention when it was deployed. The history (and other stuff) wiping is something I'm thinking about doing, but just for "health". I tend to accumulate open tabs to review later... that I never review. I started doing it in my cell phone, opening all links by default in private/expendable tabs. If the apps closes, they're gone. If the link is interesting, I'll do the effort of manually saving it somewhere.
  - Vinnl 4y ago
    You're right, TCP is enabled by default for regular Firefox too, as can be seen in the callout in the "Standard" entry here: https://assets-prod.sumo.prod.webservices.mozgcp.net/media/uploads/gallery/images/2023-01-09-04-33-36-05e8a1.png https://assets-prod.sumo.prod.webservices.mozgcp.net/media/u...

warinukraine 4y ago

Note that Temporary containers is NOT by Mozilla. Just saying...

cypherpunks01 4y ago

These extensions are killer, and are the primary reason I use Firefox. No other browsers have similar functionality at all that I've found. For me, it's the best setup I've found in terms of cookie/session management. By default, I do want every new tab I open to come with a clean slate of no cookies, local storage, SQLite, or whatever other storage/tracking mechanisms are invented. If I need to open up a Google service, I simply open a new tab in my Google container. Combined with a good password manager to quickly login to lower security accounts, it is a marginal increase in work managing sessions, with the benefit of not tracking all your cookies and history around everywhere you go. The features aren't perfect since it's not a workflow optimized for consumer simplicity, but it works for me.

blakeli12 4y ago
I agree. Google and Firefox have a high number and quality of plugins, but Google Chrome has a larger market for plugins and it is easier to find plugins for specific features. However, Firefox supports plugins in the WebExtensions format, which is compatible with Google Chrome, but also supports other formats such as XUL and XPCOM that give developers more control
mixmastamyk 4y ago
Yes, also you can have FF drop cookies from all sites but a few at the end of the session. I use this on my other computers and for nontechnical friends.
- rand0mx1 4y ago
  Its buggy https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1767271 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1767271
sfmike 4y ago
does anyone know why chrome can't do containers, this is also why i use firefox
- black_puppydog 4y ago
  It would seem its again the interest of one of the biggest contributors to the open source code base of chromium...
  - charcircuit 4y ago
    For discussion about it. https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/chromium-dev/c/IZ7peQHHWiE https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/chromium-dev/c/IZ... In response to asking about supporting multiple profiles between different tabs. >Extraordinarily difficult. I would expect person-years of effort for this, as the link between profile and window is deeply ingrained throughout the code. Chrome doesn't support containers because it would take a big investment that no one is currently willing to make. Google doesn't want to spend millions of dollars and deprioritize more important work for a niche feature that not that many people benefit from.
    - cute_boi 4y ago
      It is a lie when we know ghost browsers essentially do the same. I think it is just not in the best interest of Google because it might hurt their bottom line i.e. ads.
      - hgsgm 4y ago
        You can open a new window for a separate session, just not a new tab.
    - sirsinsalot 4y ago
      I am doubtful about the person-years of effort. It's an indirection.
aendruk 4y ago
The key insight for me was that persistence should be opt-in—when I want a website to remember me, I take action to express that—the opposite of the current norm. I sometimes wonder whether Google was strategically preempting this paradigm when they mainstreamed ephemeral sessions under the framing of sneaky mode.
- hgsgm 4y ago
  The vast majority of people find persistent sessions convenient. If you don't want cookies, you can turn them off for all sites (with exceptions) or for some sites.
  - aendruk 4y ago
    rejecting cookies ≠ giving them a short lifetime Cookies aren’t inherently bad. If a second party asks me to hold on to something while I’m actively engaged with it, that’s typically fine. At the end of the day, though, I’m deciding what to take home.
ranting-moth 4y ago
> I do want every new tab I open to come with a clean slate I'd like that too, how can you do that? I've been using Firefox containers for a while. When I open a new tab it opens in the default non-container which carries it's own storage cesspit.
- _flux 4y ago
  You need to use Temporary Container's shortcut to open the tab, I think extensions cannot override builtin ones.. (And you need Temporary Containers in the first place: that's the bit that creates fresh new containers.) For me the shortcut is alt C.
- cypherpunks01 4y ago
  The answer is using Temporary Contains with "Automatic Mode" enabled in the preferences. I just opened a new tab normally, with no shortcut, and it automatically created a fresh temp container "tmp2". I logged into HN and replied to this comment. I will close the tab now, and in 5 minutes, due to another Temp Containers setting, everything in the temp container will be wiped. The whole silly "No Container" business goes away entirely. See https://github.com/stoically/temporary-containers/wiki/Automatic-Mode https://github.com/stoically/temporary-containers/wiki/Autom...

plusminusplus 4y ago

They note: > If you are a Multi-Account Containers user who has already assigned Facebook to a Container, this extension will not work (along with workarounds)

alwayslikethis 4y ago

Temporary containers are the final solution to cookie based tracking, just like how forwarding services like Simplelogin (not affiliated) is the final solution to email spam. They have very similar underlying principles: reduce exposure by reducing the power you grant and starting afresh every time to avoid information leakage. With temporary containers, only whitelisted sites can have persistent storage and they are isolated by containers. All other sites can have cookies only within the same session, after which temporary container cookies get cleared. Combined with general content and script blocking solutions like uBlock Origin and resistFingerprinting, we can have reasonably good privacy.. for now at least, until the trackers catch up.

ComodoHacker 4y ago
For me the solution is Cookie AutoDelete extension. It allows cookies but silently deletes them (and optionally other storage) after specified amount of time (5 hours for me). So the sites don't break and I don't have to close browser to clear cookies.
sureglymop 4y ago
Temporary containers are great but sometimes there are problems with logins or payments where a sote can't redirect back to where it has to. This leads me to temporarily turn off temporary containers which kind of defeats the whole point.
blakeli12 4y ago
Facebook Container works by isolating your Facebook identity into a separate container that makes it harder for Facebook to track your visits to other websites with third-party cookies.

adql 4y ago

I was wondering about it, why the hell they develop 2 different container extensions ?

altairprime 4y ago
Power users are fickle and they too are, I suspect, power users of Firefox too.
SanjayMehta 4y ago
The simpler extension for people only concerned by Facebook's tracking.
whazor 4y ago
There is the internal container system in Firefox, and you need an extension to use it. At my work, we use this functionality to login into multiple accounts at once, for the same site.
- cute_boi 4y ago
  you actually don't need an extension. You can enable container from about:config.

rendaw 4y ago

After reading about it repeatedly here, I finally tried Multi Account Containers and I'm disappointed. I want to press a button and get site X open in container Y. But as it is, after searching for the container, you then have to search for the website you want to open in it separately. It makes having lots of containers hard, plus there's the risk of accidentally opening sites in your "main container", etc. You have to do twice the work for every new site, maintaining bookmarks and containers. There's a function to always open a site in a container, but this obviously falls over if you have multiple accounts (aws, gmail, etc), plus the UI is poorly communicated. There are requests to make it so you can associate a container with a bookmark, for instance, but apparently Moz prevented Moz from doing this via browser apis, and have been powerless to do anything about it for years. It could have been awesome.

anhner 4y ago
have you tried right click > open in container > choose container? or right click on the tab > reopen in container > choose container
rtontic 4y ago
Another thing you can do, hold left click on the new tab button. You will get a drop-down where you can chose which container to open the tab in.
jeroenhd 4y ago
I disagree. I think the current system works great. When the "always open" setting conflicts with a current container, you get a prompt. If you want to open a specific container, long press the create tab button to get a selection of containers so you can browse to the website manually. Using multiple accounts works great for me. Clicking on links will open in the same container, opening the website in a specific container is easy, I don't see the blocker here. I don't know how many containers you intend on using but I don't find the feature problematic at all. Maybe the Tree Style Tabs integration is fixing a problem I don't know about, but it's working great for me.
climb_stealth 4y ago
Agreed, it's just a bit too clunky to be practical. In the end I have two containers I actually use, but only for special purposes. One is when I have to log in to facebook and one is for searching with a different language set. Neither of which happens more than once a month at most. So yeah, everything else happens in the main browser as before.

Bombthecat 4y ago

Is there something similar for mobile?

plaguepilled 4y ago

I love these two, but I actually have a third, even more paranoid option for you to ponder: LibreWolf with default settings. It has total cookie protection (meaning tabs don't co-mingle) and u-block origin is on by default. Finally, history is wiped on browser close. This, IMO, is on par with the aforementioned plug ins, but is more "uniform" in the sense that every librewolf install is identical. Additionally, librewolf has WAY less telemetry out of the box than Firefox, which is always nice.

tecleandor 4y ago
Truth is the first time I check this, but theoretically it was also deployed by default to Firefox some months ago (and I see it activated in my Nightly install). Have any of you seen/noticed a difference when TCP is enabled? I wasn't paying attention when it was deployed. The history (and other stuff) wiping is something I'm thinking about doing, but just for "health". I tend to accumulate open tabs to review later... that I never review. I started doing it in my cell phone, opening all links by default in private/expendable tabs. If the apps closes, they're gone. If the link is interesting, I'll do the effort of manually saving it somewhere.
- Vinnl 4y ago
  You're right, TCP is enabled by default for regular Firefox too, as can be seen in the callout in the "Standard" entry here: https://assets-prod.sumo.prod.webservices.mozgcp.net/media/uploads/gallery/images/2023-01-09-04-33-36-05e8a1.png https://assets-prod.sumo.prod.webservices.mozgcp.net/media/u...