- cross-posted to:
- privacy@lemmy.ml
- privacy@lemmy.ml
- technology@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- privacy@lemmy.ml
- privacy@lemmy.ml
- technology@lemmy.ml
You must log in or register to comment.
Starting in what versions?
Why are we posting 2 year old articles as though they are new?
I guess it says updated, but hey. PR for Firefox is cool, until the imminent enshittification.
The moment that Firefox goes too far, it’ll immediately be forked and 75% of the user base would leave within a few months. Their user base is almost entirely privacy-conscious, technologically savvy people.
Depends on how it “goes too far”. What I am, for example, afraid of is the possibility of removing Manifest V2 support. Maintaining the browser with such a significant change would get more and more difficult as time goes on.
I think that would be an example of a wildly unpopular change, yeah.
This is currently one of the biggest selling points for the browser, since Chrom(ium) is dropping support for v2… So I don’t see that happening.
Firefox did an add-on genocide years ago and it obviously didn’t hurt them in the long run.
I agree, but something will have to change because chrome will swallow ALL that. Just today some back-end problem was messing up all my stuff, and co-workers were asking, " did you try a different browser? " botch no I did not try Netscape
“I agree [with the opposite of what you said]. Also, here, have an irrelevant anecdote that includes a funny misspelling and a supposed diss of FF from 1999”
Not sure what you mean - I don’t think most of the people still using Firefox are going to switch to a Chromium based browser any time soon, I can’t speak for everyone of course but it feels like Firefox users tend to have an ideological objection to Google having a monopoly on web browsers.
It’s always worth trying a different browser when you have issues on websites - there are a lot of things that can be different beyond the layout and javascript engines - cookies, configuration, addons, etc. Yesterday I noticed a big difference between Chromium and Firefox in that even if you hard-refresh on a HTTP/2 connection, Chromium reuses a kept-alive connection, and firefox doesn’t — I would totally argue that Firefox’s implementation is more correct, but Chrome’s implementation will lead to a better experience for users hard-refreshing.
Personally, I remember chrome always flash banging me when on a website with a dark background and I clicked to the next page because apparently clearing the page to the same RGB value as what is set as the HTML background is too hard so they just always clear with pure white. But they did have a faster JS engine. Not sure anymore, haven’t given enough of a shit to try anything but firefox in years now.
Looks like the article was updated today. I’m guessing this was originally covering an announcement for a future rollout and now it’s finally happening?
Maybe. Confusing decision on the part of Mozilla though, if so. I was checking to see if they mentioned which version this update happened in, but couldn’t find it. Then I noticed the original post date. Weird.
this article has not been edited, is from 2022, and says the feature was rolled out in June.
Yup. Nobody else gets those cookies.
Maybe they should try to develop the uBlock Origin extension with the dev to make it last more.
Does this stop me from adding to my website an iframe to facebook where facebook can keep its cookies for my user? That would be great but I doubt it.
IIRC an iframe contents is treated as a separate window, so cookies aren’t shared either
Sure, but the separate window can be on a different domain. Now you have a way to share cookies across multiple websites on different domains if all of them include an iframe to this external domain. And you can use in-browser messages (see window.postMessage()) to communicate between iframes and main window.
Indeed see sibling comment https://programming.dev/comment/11983146
That’s horrific WHY?
do not add any event listeners for
messageevents. This is a completely foolproof way to avoid security problems. 🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡
I haven’t worked with HTML since 1999; I hate that I’m just now finding out that iframes are somehow still a thing in the modern world. What the actual fuck. Why? Don’t we have some fancy HTML5 or Ajax or something that can replace them?
Yeah i don’t know why, probably exactly because is such a neglected feature that it offers workarounds for some limitations, like in the case of cookie-related patterns.
making Firefox the most private and secure major browser
If calling home and to selected 3rd party analytics aren’t part of the metric then yes, Firefox might be the most private.
Just move to LibreWolf.
You’re aware that LibreWolf is a Firefox fork, right? The quote is literally “major browser”, which obviously precludes fairly niche forks.
Of course I am… and that’s the point. Librewolf is Firefox without the spyware.
But it’s not a “major browser.” It’s a niche fork that has valuable adjustments for power users, but would be unusable for your average non-technically inclined user. I use Librewolf myself and appreciate it, but it’s not something you can just drop on an older relative’s machine and expect to work fine. Firefox has plenty of issues out of the box with sneaking in ads and telemetry, but at the same time you still have to understand that it’s an important player in the market despite its flaws because it’s the only real mainstream competitor to an entirely Chromium-based ecosystem, and despite the issues it does have, it’s still lightyears ahead of Chrome.
Such a chad move. Respect!
I wonder how long until all the distros have this.
It baffles me that this was ever not the case.
It was - in the ancient times. Then, there were 3rd party cookies which you had to manually approve upon the initial creation. And then it went all down south and got abused via CDNs and ad networks.
Chrome, I’m looking at you. When are you getting it?
Never, because Chrome is a data harvesting platform.
Made by an advertising company
Google recently cancelled their 3rd party cookie plan because they realized its not gonna work for their data harvesting goals
Alright fine ill switch browsers AGAIN
ah yes, the other TCP
Maybe they should patent it, to protect their TCP IP.
Or have some higher tier version called Ultimate Cookie Protection {UDP)
LOL
Id prefer a security security oriented Secure Cookie Total Protection (SCTP)
Wouldn’t that be Ultimate Dookie Protection?
danvit, yes
Tasty Consensual Photos
Does this make containers unnecessary? Or basically built in?
FREEEDOOOOOOOOOOOM
It is making the tracking protection part of containers obsolete, this is basically that functionality but built in and default. The containers still let you have multiple cookie jars for the same site, so they are still useful if you have multiple accounts on a site.
A lot different. Containers act as a separate instance of Firefox. So any sites you visit within a container can see each other as if you were using a browser normally. The containers can’t see the stuff from other containers though. So you have to actively switch containers all the time to make it work right.
This keeps cookies locked to each page that needs cookies. So a lot stronger.
I think there’s some confusion here. You’re talking about Multi-Account Containers, that person was talking about the Facebook Container. Both Firefox features with confusingly similar names, and honestly that’s on Firefox for naming them.
Facebook Container is similar to this TCP feature, but focused on Facebook. And of course it was a separate extension, so very opt-in. Now, Firefox has rolled it out for ALL sites by default, which is awesome and SHOULD HAVE BEEN HOW COOKIES WORKED IN THE FIRST PLACE!
Isn’t there just a non-extension container feature, I can’t tell what’s the difference between that one and multi-account containers.
So what you’re saying is, each site gets its own container?
Yeah this basically sounds like it takes the temporary container add on that I think was folded into Firefox at some point recently and basically just does it behind the scenes now on a per domain basis
Containers also handle other cached content besides cookies.
Well, now how am I supposed to cross reference my need of fuzzy slippers and woodworking stuff?!
Take that, cookie monsters!
