Firefox Rolls Out Total Cookie Protection By Default | The Mozilla Blog
blog.mozilla.org
Updated Aug. 28, 2024. Take back your privacy Firefox is rolling out Total Cookie Protection by default to more Firefox users worldwide, making Firefox the
      • sandbox@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        21 days ago

        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.

        • EngineerGaming@feddit.nlEnglish
          0·
          21 days ago

          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.

          • verdigris@lemmy.mlEnglish
            0·
            21 days ago

            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.

        • morriscox@lemmy.worldEnglish
          0·
          21 days ago

          Firefox did an add-on genocide years ago and it obviously didn’t hurt them in the long run.

        • unemployedclaquer@sopuli.xyzEnglish
          0·
          21 days ago

          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

          • TrickDacy@lemmy.worldEnglish
            0·
            21 days ago

            “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”

          • sandbox@lemmy.worldEnglish
            0·
            21 days ago

            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.

            • Esp@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
              0·
              21 days ago

              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.

    • troybot [he/him]@midwest.socialEnglish
      0·
      21 days ago

      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?

      • TrickDacy@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        21 days ago

        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.

  • foremanguy@lemmy.mlEnglish
    0·
    20 days ago

    Maybe they should try to develop the uBlock Origin extension with the dev to make it last more.

  • Cosmicomical@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    21 days ago

    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.

  • TCB13@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    21 days ago

    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.

    • Doug7070@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      20 days ago

      You’re aware that LibreWolf is a Firefox fork, right? The quote is literally “major browser”, which obviously precludes fairly niche forks.

      • TCB13@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        20 days ago

        Of course I am… and that’s the point. Librewolf is Firefox without the spyware.

        • Doug7070@lemmy.worldEnglish
          0·
          18 days ago

          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.

    • mbirth@lemmy.mlEnglish
      0·
      21 days ago

      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.

    • snaggen@programming.devEnglish
      0·
      21 days ago

      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.

    • Altima NEO@lemmy.zipEnglish
      0·
      21 days ago

      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.

      • PeachMan@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        21 days ago

        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!

        • stephen01king@lemmy.zipEnglish
          0·
          20 days ago

          Isn’t there just a non-extension container feature, I can’t tell what’s the difference between that one and multi-account containers.

    • Jessica@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
      0·
      21 days ago

      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