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

Firefox 74

mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 269 posts

Re: Firefox 74

#211

Post by ycombinator_acc »

Fnoord wrote: post #186
blahyawnblah wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it OK to be track by Apple or Netflix?

> Why is it OK to be track by Apple or Netflix? That is not what I asserted. I asserted I don't care about it. I don't believe Netflix tracks me outside of .netflix.com and I don't believe Apple tracks me outside of .apple.com (and the other domains ofc). If they do, you have to convince me it is harming my interests (ie. my privacy or freedom of choice). I know Google tracks me, I know Facebook tracks me. Their prof…

But there are thousands big ones out there. Cloudflare, Cloudfront, Baidu, Yandex, Akamai, Tencent, Twitter, Yahoo, Disqus, Uber, Airbnb, Pinterest etc. Why bring up Apple and Netflix specifically?

Re: Firefox 74

#212

Post by spartas »

freeopinion wrote: post #196
StavrosK wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Switch to an email provider that doesn't want to track you. You can be on Fastmail in an hour if you have your own domain.

protonmail did the oddest thing to me the other day. It sent an email to my gmail account to inform me that I had received an email at my protonmail address. I was stunned. The main point of having the protonmail account was to keep google out of my business. Now I have to find a provider that doesn't leak in the dumbest of ways.

In protonmail, Settings → Daily email notifications → Disabled. No, I don't understand why that isn't the default setting either.

Re: Firefox 74

#213

Post by sandov »

Ohn0 wrote: post #160

> When a video is uploaded with a batch of photos on Instagram ... Features just for insta? I thought this was a web browser not an instagram browser. I guess same goes for the facebook container... what's up with building browser features for facebook? Why no reddit container, or google container, or amazon container?

Firefox stopped being a neutral browser long ago. See [1] and [2][3].

[1] https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2019/08/21/mozilla-takes-actio...

[2] https://discourse.mozilla.org/t/the-removal-of-the-dissenter... [3] https://hub.packtpub.com/mozilla-and-google-chrome-refuse-to...

Re: Firefox 74

#214

Post by dorgo »

atombender wrote: post #205
sadfklsjlkjwt wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Try umatrix you could use it a little like this. Sadly most sites use a lot of third party javascript, css etc so it will be a clunkier experience than you are hoping for.

That just sounds like more micromanagement to me?

What is the difference to answering 10 to 20 "Allow/Deny?" question on each website? The website just won't work until you figure out which 3 of the 15 requests are needed to render the website properly. Most of these domains aren't "microsoft.com" but something like "gibberish123.net". Good luck guessing whether the request is legitime/usefull.

edit: sounds like another addon idea: find the minimal set of 3rd parties needed to render a website.

Re: Firefox 74

#215

Post by kyleee »

metalliqaz wrote: post #121

This release really seems broken to me. Tree Style Tabs broke completely, and i have problems with non-responsive windows

Ugh that makes me worry, what happened to TST for you?

Re: Firefox 74

#216

Post by atombender »

dorgo wrote: post #214
atombender wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That just sounds like more micromanagement to me?

What is the difference to answering 10 to 20 "Allow/Deny?" question on each website? The website just won't work until you figure out which 3 of the 15 requests are needed to render the website properly. Most of these domains aren't "microsoft.com" but something like "gibberish123.net". Good luck guessing whether the request is legitime/usefull. edit: sounds like another addon idea: find the minimal set of 3rd partie…

You can eliminate most of those things based on general blacklisting rules for ads and beacons of the kind that adblockers currently rely on.

Re: Firefox 74

#217

Post by chipperyman573 »

ycombinator_acc wrote: post #211
Fnoord wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why is it OK to be track by Apple or Netflix? That is not what I asserted. I asserted I don't care about it. I don't believe Netflix tracks me outside of .netflix.com and I don't believe Apple tracks me outside of .apple.com (and the other domains ofc). If they do, you have to convince me it is harming my interests (ie. my privacy or freedom of choice). I know Google tracks me, I know Facebook tracks me. Their prof…

But there are thousands big ones out there. Cloudflare, Cloudfront, Baidu, Yandex, Akamai, Tencent, Twitter, Yahoo, Disqus, Uber, Airbnb, Pinterest etc. Why bring up Apple and Netflix specifically?

netflix is the N and apple is an A in GAFAN

Re: Firefox 74

#218

Post by saberworks »

bad_user wrote: post #190
saberworks wrote: post #158

I don't know what is up with mozilla/firefox. I'm still using firefox but not because I like it, only because the alternatives are worse. I signed up for a firefox account almost right after they were announced. At the time and multiple times since I've unsubscribed from "all" their emails because I'm not interested in them. They just either invent a new list and auto-subscribe me to it or they just ignore my prefere…

I've also signed up for a Firefox sync account ever since it was launched, and the only emails I get are the security notifications about new sign-ins. The Firefox Account has no communication options and does not send promotional emails: https://accounts.firefox.com/settings Not sure what lists you're subscribed to, but they aren't part of this account. What mailing lists have you subscribed to or what service are y…

They absolutely do send "promotional" emails and in the communication preferences there was a huge list of different newsletters (which always seems to change). I'm not the only one getting this spam email:

https://old.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/fggla9/get_the_f_o...

Re: Firefox 74

#219

Post by rolandog »

atombender wrote: post #198
stavros wrote: post #14

The Facebook container is great, but I wish there was an option for the built-in Multi-Account containers to work this way. I've been doing what the Facebook Container extension does, but with built-in containers, and the experience is very clunky. The two biggest issues are that I can't give the container a list of domains beforehand and say "everything under google.com should open here". I have to go to each Google…

Personally, I don't want to micromanage "containers" as a user. I truly don't understand why this is considered a nice feature. Who wants to micromanage anything? What I want is for every web page to run in its own container by default. Zero configuration. If it wants to access anything outside of its allowed domain hiearchy (like call an external API), I'd like the browser to ask for permission on its behalf. "Githu…

I don't want to sound dismissive of your proposal, it'd be great to have a more restrictive set of defaults to prevent tracking...

But just consider the automatic way a regular user clicks at any prompt that gets in their way out of habit...

I am guilty of this sometimes, even though I try to be mindful and always try to opt-out of tracking cookies, etc.

I think the system you're proposing has to have some sort of smart way to whitelist, either by granting temporary whitelisting with varying granularity (e.g. for this session, for 1 hour, forever ... Etc).

I think Privacy Badger (the add-on) has partially solved this (learning through counting how many times a tracker's domain appears on other sites), maybe this could applied in reverse: automatically whitelist after N approvals.

What do you think?

Re: Firefox 74

#220

Post by danlugo92 »

Tomte wrote: post #125
sirmoveon wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm just trying to help. The idea of having a link clicked inside a container and expect it to go to a different container as a default setting, seems to contradict web standars. Now, if you've explicitly assigned the clicked domain to a different container, then yes, it should go to its container (which is how it works, to me at least).

I'm simply explaining something you hadn't understood. But I'm not aware of any "web standard" codifying container behaviour.

There are (standarized) things that get sent to x.com when you click on a link to it on m.com. Stuff that wouldn't be there if you actually copy pasted the link.
Post reply on HN