Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Facebook Container Extension

addons.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 107 posts

Re: Facebook Container Extension

#81

Post by jeroenhd »

rendaw wrote: post #21
_fat_santa wrote: post #3

Related: Multi Account Containers - Same thing as the facebook container but more generi - 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-con...

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…

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.

Re: Facebook Container Extension

#82

Post by illusiveman »

lopis wrote: post #72
illusiveman wrote: post #61

I'm not sure why this is even on the front-page now, given that it's been released for many years already, but in any case, here's my two cents about this topic: Containers are a misunderstood technology. People think about them as a privacy feature, but that's far from real. The only benefit of containers is the ability to have different sessions of the same service in the same windows/profile. That's it. A good use…

It is a privacy feature, specially when paired with Cookie Auto Delete. I have CAD setup to always delete cookies when I close all tabs of a website. But I can add exceptions per website and per container. So I have a Google container that is the only place where I allow Google to leave cookies on my browser. I do the same for a several other websites. Sure, Google can always track you somehow, like IP address, but i…

do you realize CAD is unnecessary because Firefox has site isolation for a few years already?

anyways, it's CAD the one providing you that sense of privacy, not the container.

Re: Facebook Container Extension

#83

Post by qwerty456127 »

Facebook containers are a killer frature. As soon as I bought a new laptop and became able to afford using Firefox (it was too slow on the old one so I had to use Chrome-based browsers as they worked much faster) I don't have to use multiple browsers nor multiple browser users in separate windows to isolate specific websites. This is awesome.

By the way there is a more sophisticated version of the extension which would let you configure rules so specific websites would open in specific containers automatically.

Re: Facebook Container Extension

#84

Post by stuaxo »

sirsinsalot wrote: post #71
charcircuit wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For discussion about it. 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 curren…

I am doubtful about the person-years of effort. It's an indirection.

In this writeup [1] about adding Rust to Chromium there is a note on the architecture shared state in the architure which may explain the difficulty

"... Chrome is built on foundational but really wide C++ APIs, such as the //content/public layer. We examined what it would mean for us to build Rust components against these types of APIs. At a high level what we found was that because C++ and Rust play by different rules, things can go sideways very easily.

For example, Rust guarantees temporal memory safety with static analysis that relies on two inputs: lifetimes (inferred or explicitly written) and exclusive mutability. The latter is incompatible with how the majority of Chromium’s C++ is written. We hold redundant mutable pointers throughout the system, and pointers that provide multiple paths to reach mutable pointers. ..."

[1] https://security.googleblog.com/2023/01/supporting-use-of-ru...

Re: Facebook Container Extension

#85

Post by jeroenhd »

baby wrote: post #31

Another question is: do you prefer ads that are useless to you, or ads that actually show you stuff you might want?

Sure, I want ads that are useful to me. That doesn't mean I want a million companies to stalk me online, finding ways to sell me things I don't need.

Tracking ads are almost always trying to sell you something you don't need in ways that you specifically are considered susceptible to. I'm sure there are normal ads out there, but the ones I see are almost always A/B tested and designed to exploit one of my supposed weaknesses. I don't want your psychological warfare but that's what the modern ad landscape has become about.

If I read an article about TVs, I expect ads about TVs. If someone writes a social media post about fridges, I expect ads about fridges. Content-based ad libraries are out there for the people that are interested in the products that are being advertised. On the few websites that use them, I've actually clicked on a few.

Sadly, most of them were stopped by my adblocker anyway because the redirect the ads led to still tried to track me, but in a few cases the system just worked.

If you need to know who I am, where I live, what my gender and age are, how many kids I have, how many pets I have, where I work and where I'm going on holiday this summer in order to sell me something, you don't have anything I want.

Re: Facebook Container Extension

#87

Post by [deleted] »

sirsinsalot wrote: post #71
charcircuit wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For discussion about it. 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 curren…

I am doubtful about the person-years of effort. It's an indirection.

[deleted]

Re: Facebook Container Extension

#88

Post by actualwitch »

krded wrote: post #12
wereallterrrist wrote: post #4

Every time I try to use cool Firefox features and extensions to manage privacy, I wind up frustrated and lost in thought about just how good Firefox could be, if someone with vision and benevolent dictator status took charge. 1. Unify all of the various settings, addons, downloads, bookmark dialogs. They should all just be tabs, with consistent style. I should be able to "nav" to the others easily, and they should pr…

Sounds like you thought this through, Firefox welcomed contributors

Something tells me if someone opened a pull request to rewrite 90% of UI, it wouldn't get merged.

Re: Facebook Container Extension

#90

Post by Vinnl »

black_puppydog wrote: post #37
hysan wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Felt the same exact way. I’ve tried multiple times to give Firefox containers a try, but the UX is just horribly designed. So much so that I don’t think they even care about it as a feature. It feels more like a publicity stunt. If a browser could deliver a usable container experience, I would instantly switch to it.

Folks, I realize it must be frustrating that it doesn't fit your use cases, and I agree the "multiple accounts for the same site" use case isn't well covered, but that they're "unusable" is simply not true. I for one (but apparently also many others) have been very happily using them as they are. For most of the sites I use them for I have exactly one account and would like to have zero. Essentially, if I make a cont…

> Essentially, if I make a container for you're website, you've made it to my personal shit list. :)

Ha, I'm the other way around: all websites go into temporary containers, and if I make a container for your website, it's a privilege that I'm allowing you to remember me.

Post reply on HN