this post was submitted on 28 Aug 2024
2268 points (99.3% liked)

Technology

59038 readers
4357 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 9tr6gyp3@lemmy.world 420 points 2 months ago (2 children)
[–] ngwoo@lemmy.world 134 points 2 months ago (16 children)

Advertisers track you with device fingerprinting and behaviour profiling now. Firefox doesn't do much to obscure the more advanced methods of tracking.

[–] MrPoopbutt@lemmy.world 36 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Don't all the advanced ways rely on JavaScript?

[–] hoot@lemmy.ca 60 points 2 months ago (8 children)

Lots do. But do you know anyone that turns JS off anymore? Platforms don't care if they miss the odd user for this - because almost no one will be missed.

[–] pixelscript@lemm.ee 30 points 2 months ago (6 children)

"Anymore"? I've never met a single soul who knows this is even possible. I myself don't even know how to do it if I wanted to.

I do use NoScript, which does this on a site-by-site basis, but even that is considered extremely niche. I've never met another NoScripter in the wild.

[–] deranger@sh.itjust.works 34 points 2 months ago

Why not just use ublock medium mode?

Roughly similar to using Adblock Plus with many filter lists + NoScript with 1st-party scripts/frames automatically trusted. Unlike NoScript however, you can easily point-and-click to block/allow scripts on a per-site basis.

https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Blocking-mode:-medium-mode

[–] zero_spelled_with_an_ecks@programming.dev 18 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Am I in the wild? I use it.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (15 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ArchRecord@lemm.ee 308 points 2 months ago (7 children)

For those who don't care to read the full article:

This basically just confines any cookies generated on a page, to just that page.

So, instead of a cookie from, say, Facebook, being stored on site A, then requested for tracking purposes on site B, each individual site would be sent its own separate Facebook cookie, that only gets used on that site, preventing it from tracking you anywhere outside of the specific site you got it from in the first place.

[–] peopleproblems@lemmy.world 205 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Hahahahaha so it doesn't break anything that still relies on cookies, but neuters the ability to share them.

That's awesome

[–] ripcord@lemmy.world 60 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

Honestly, I thought that's how it already worked.

Edit: I think what I'm remembering is that you can define the cookies by site/domain, and restrict to just those. And normally would, for security reasons.

But some asshole sites like Facebook are cookies that are world-readable for tracking, and this breaks that.

Someone correct me if I got it wrong.

[–] ArchRecord@lemm.ee 31 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Total Cookie Protection was already a feature, (introduced on Feb 23st 2021) but it was only for people using Firefox's Enhanced Tracking Protection (ETP) on strict mode.

They had a less powerful third-party cookie blocking feature for users that didn't have ETP on strict mode, that blocked third party cookies on specific block lists. (i.e. known tracking companies)

This just expanded that original functionality, by making it happen on any domain, and have it be the default for all users, rather than an opt-in feature of Enhanced Tracking Protection.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Telorand@reddthat.com 25 points 2 months ago (2 children)

They've been doing this with container tabs, so this must be the successor to that idea (I'm going to assume they'll still have container tabs).

[–] jollyrogue@lemmy.ml 20 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Container tabs are still a thing in FF. This is based on that work, if I remember correctly.

[–] Telorand@reddthat.com 20 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I love container tabs. It's one of the reasons I went back to FF.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de 29 points 2 months ago

Basically creates a fake VM like environment for each site.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] tlou3please@lemmy.world 123 points 2 months ago (6 children)

I think this tips it over the edge for me to switch to Firefox

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 62 points 2 months ago

I hope so! It's a wonderful side of the Internet to be on

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] roguetrick@lemmy.world 87 points 2 months ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 82 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Aren’t cookies already limited to the site at which they were created??

What the fuck? You mean to tell me sites have been sharing cookies?

I thought all browsers only delivered cookies back to the same site.

[–] Dave@lemmy.nz 156 points 2 months ago (9 children)

The problem is that a website is generally not served from one domain.

Put a Facebook like button on your website, it's loaded directly from Facebook servers. Now they can put a cookie on your computer with an identifier.

Now every site you visit with a Facebook like button, they know it was you. They can watch you as you move around the web.

Google does this at a larger scale. Every site with Google ads on it. Every site using Google analytics. Every site that embeds a Google map. They can stick a cookie in and know you were there.

[–] FuryMaker@lemmy.world 37 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Is this also how they know which ads to feed you?

[–] Dave@lemmy.nz 58 points 2 months ago

Yes, it's the reason for the tracking. To sell more targeted ads.

If you're up for reading some shennanigans, check out the book Mindf*ck. It's about the Cambridge Analytica scandal, written by a whistleblower, and details election manipulation using data collected from Facebook and other public or purchased data.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] Mongostein@lemmy.ca 45 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (9 children)

I know Facebook and Reddit are in cahoots.

I went to visit Reddit a couple weeks back to read the Deadpool & Wolverine comments, but used the wrong container tab and now Facebook feeds me endless Marvel related stuff.

A lot of it is culture war bullshit too. Hmmmmm 🤔

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] unemployedclaquer@sopuli.xyz 19 points 2 months ago

NO.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_cookies

Maybe it's not allowed in your local jurisdiction? But it's been a problem since forever.

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 58 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Why are we posting 2 year old articles as though they are new?

[–] troybot@midwest.social 28 points 2 months ago (2 children)

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?

[–] AdrianTheFrog@lemmy.world 21 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

this article has not been edited, is from 2022, and says the feature was rolled out in June.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] unemployedclaquer@sopuli.xyz 22 points 2 months ago (11 children)

I guess it says updated, but hey. PR for Firefox is cool, until the imminent enshittification.

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] phoneymouse@lemmy.world 48 points 2 months ago (5 children)

Does this make containers unnecessary? Or basically built in?

[–] altima_neo@lemmy.zip 29 points 2 months ago (3 children)

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.

[–] phoneymouse@lemmy.world 18 points 2 months ago

So what you’re saying is, each site gets its own container?

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Beaver@lemmy.ca 38 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Good to see Firefox still has value to provide

[–] ripcord@lemmy.world 31 points 2 months ago

Firefox is awesome.

[–] ChaoticEntropy@feddit.uk 31 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Is this different from blocking 3rd party cookies?

[–] bhamlin@lemmy.world 64 points 2 months ago

A little. If a third party cookie is set while you're visiting a site, only that site will get the third party cookie back. Multiple sites can have embedded content making third party cookies, and with this change firefox will track where it was made and only give it back there.

With this change, it doesn't matter if it's first or third or whatever; cookies will only be given back to a site that matches much of what is in your location bar.

[–] joyjoy@lemm.ee 29 points 2 months ago

Mozilla completes what Google was too afraid to finish.

[–] narc0tic_bird@lemm.ee 24 points 2 months ago

Article from JUNE 14, 2022

[–] Psythik@lemmy.world 22 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (7 children)

Is this the reason why I have to "confirm it's you" every time I sign into a Google service now? I appreciate the fact that Firefox's protection is so good that Google doesn't recognize my PC anymore, but it's extremely annoying to have to pull out my phone every time I want to watch YouTube.

This might be what finally convinces me to ditch Google for good. Good job, Firefox devs.

[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 34 points 2 months ago (1 children)

No. That's just Google trying to pester you into using Chrome.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] xthexder@l.sw0.com 27 points 2 months ago (8 children)

This wouldn't make you have to log in every time you watch YouTube. It means by signing in to google.com, youtube.com can't tell that you're signed in. If you sign in on youtube.com, you'll stay signed in on youtube.com unless you have something else deleting your cookies.

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] noxy@yiffit.net 21 points 2 months ago (2 children)
[–] monotremata@lemmy.ca 30 points 2 months ago (5 children)

Maybe they should patent it, to protect their TCP IP.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] joel_feila@lemmy.world 19 points 2 months ago

I wonder how long until all the distros have this.

[–] bruzzard@lemmy.world 19 points 2 months ago (1 children)

This is old news, from 2022!!

[–] Bakersfield@lemmy.world 27 points 2 months ago (1 children)

From the blog post:

"June 14, 2022"

"Updated Aug. 28, 2024"

"And starting in 2024, all our users can look forward to Firefox blocking even more third party cookies."

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›