[eclecticfrank]

Lots of Firefox hate here, but little discussion about the articles kicker, which is the exclusion of uBlock Origin from Chrome.

I hope this will mean that in the long run Firefox (and other secondary browsers) will gain more users again. For me, Firefox is a solid piece of software. Works well in strict privacy mode, with uBlock Origin and Multi-Account Containers.

[Twirrim]

Multi-Account Containers is a major feature I can't sing the praises for enough. I use it all the time, both to isolate stuff to break cookie tracking, and to enable me to log into things with two different accounts without opening a separate browser, which happens more often than I'd have thought.

[pavel_lishin]

There's a few pain points with containers; whenever I'm browsing in a container tab, I wish CMD-T opened a new container tab, not my default tab. I haven't been able to find a setting for this :/

I also wish there were more keyboard shortcuts for opening links in specific containers, or re-opening a current tab in a different one.

I know you can set certain domains to always open in certain containers - fine for Facebook, when I occasionally have to use it - but annoying when I'm trying to do things in different (e.g.) Bluesky accounts.

[sorcercode]

> I also wish there were more keyboard shortcuts for opening links in specific containers, or re-opening a current tab in a different one.

fwiw, there are add-ons that allow you to do this - in one way or the other (Container Hotkeys https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/container-hot... for example).

but out of curiosity,

> I know you can set certain domains to always open in certain containers - fine for Facebook, when I occasionally have to use it - but annoying when I'm trying to do things in different (e.g.) Bluesky accounts.

on this one btw, the Containerise extension i talk about (if it wasn't clear) allows you to also map "portions" of the url in specific containers. so /u/0 in one /u/1 in another; ofc, this requires the service/website to distinguish the accounts via the url. i do this for github a lot (work repos in specific containers)

[pavel_lishin]

Very cool, thank you - I'll check out the hotkeys add-on!

The other extension won't work for me, mostly - for example, Bluesky doesn't give me different URLs depending on who I'm logged in as. (Which is the correct thing to do, but it does make my life slightly harder. :/)

edit: oh, nevermind. It looks like it adds a single hotkey to open a new tab in a single, specified container. I was at least hoping the hotkey would work by opening a new tab in the same container I'm in currently :/

[ddejohn]

Not having subdomains work for container assignments is a baffling design decision. It's a well-known issue and oft-requested feature that the devs seemingly have no plan to fix. It's incredibly frustrating.

> whenever I'm browsing in a container tab, I wish CMD-T opened a new container tab

Not exactly what you're looking for, but Temporary Containers (no longer maintained, fwiw) at least will open every new tab in a new temporary container that will be wiped after a configurable amount of time after closing.

[erikvanoosten]

Open a new tab for a certain container with Cmd-1 (or Cmd-Shift-1, I forgot) for the first container in your list, with 2 for the second, etc.

[ReadCarlBarks]

> both to isolate stuff to break cookie tracking

You don't need containers for this: https://total-cookie-protection-test.netlify.app/

[lillecarl]

When I was doing IT support for ~50 SMBs I was using multi account containers + temporary locations ALL THE TIME to log into customer accounts in various places, now I don't really have the usecase but the addons are still there for the rare occasion.

[Tadpole9181]

I love that feature, my only complaint is that it's an atrocious, confusing UX that has never synced correctly for me, which integrates ads for FFX VPN, and has been forgotten when it really needs to be added to the core browser.

[bool3max]

In the long run Alphabet will find a way to bar non-vetted browsers from accessing the Internet.

[IHLayman]

Alphabet will definitely try to do that (within their business interest and all that), but I still choose to believe in the precept that “the net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it”, as old and outdated as that sounds.

A number of my privacy-minded friends choose a bi-modal approach: have two phones, one for work and one for personal. They don’t get the recent model (costing half as much), hold onto the old phone for as long as they can, use one phone for “required” apps (Okta, Slack, those websites that only work on Chrome…) and the personal phone for everything else.

As annoying as it is, i think that compartmentalized devices/accounts/apps are the only way forward.

[GeoAtreides]

The future is now (actually 2 years ago): https://github.com/explainers-by-googlers/Web-Environment-In...

[kaszanka]

Probably even non-vetted firmware-to-browser chains, by requiring boot attestation to open a TLS connection or something.

[normalaccess]

I'm dreading the day when this becomes required by the government...

[jorvi]

With the ramping up of 18+ verification in Australia and now Europe (and South Korea and China already having such a programme for many years, including game time locks for young people), yeah.

It doesn't seem that big a leap to connect the dots from device attestation > web browser integrity > identity verification > verified web access

There is actually a relatively old game series of the 2000s called Bluesky Hacker Replay that has this as the core element of its worldbuilding. Governments and corporations became tired of the internet being overrun with spam, viruses, porn and cyberterrorism and decide to create an internet 2.0, tightly controlled by corporate interests. Hackers persist on the old 1.0 internet called the SwitchNet.

And really, when you think about it.. if you composed an internet solely from the big name social media, entertainment, work, food, news and knowledge services, running atop Cloudflare who verifies everyone via government ID, how many would really complain? 99% of their internet time is already spent inside that bubble.

[prasadjoglekar]

Hopefully in the slightly shorter run, they get broken up via anti trust.

[glenstein]

Interestingly, I think if the Chrome browser gets spun off from Google, it might make sense for Google to have to make annual payments to support the development of Chrome like they do Firefox. Obviously being the default search in Chrome should have significant value worth paying for the same as Firefox and Safari. And it might be the most plausible economic model for Chrome if it's not being funded by Google.

[Cthulhu_]

They will try, but anti-trust laws and -lawsuits should compel them otherwise. Microsoft had to pay hundreds of millions in fines to the EU for not complying with a previous browser choice order [0], following previous lawsuits in the US about their tight coupling of Internet Explorer [1] in which they settled for $1 billion. Google has to pay a fine in excess of 4 billion (!) to the EU for anti-competitive practices in Android [2].

[0] https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_13_...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor....

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitrust_cases_against_Google...

[glenstein]

This does raise a very interesting point though in my opinion. There's been some debate about whether Google should be compelled to sell off its chromium browser, but I wonder if it makes more sense to spin off Google's various attempts at boning internet infrastructure such as AMP and 8.8.8.8.

I guess AMP is being wound down but it was a play for shifting more of the Internet onto Google infrastructure.

[seanclayton]

Some of us want a different world and believe it's possible.

[pivo]

Perhaps, but I'm not giving up just yet.

[psionides]

How would they do that?

[bornfreddy]

Now we are talking! Let's see the required steps, not necessarily in this order:

1) create a dominant browser 2) create a dominant mobile OS 3) create a dominant e-mail service 4) create a dominant search engine 5) leverage each of these to make other solutions, especially open ones, difficult to use 6) make other browsers perform badly when interacting with your services 7) lock other browsers from accessing your services, effectively crippling them

There are some more minor steps, like making your main browser competitor dependent on your funding, but we can leave out the details. So we are now at... step 6?

[hbn]

On my list of concerns for big tech abusing power, the ad company with the browser monopoly leveraging their position to essentially end ad blocking on the web by disabling it on the browser people are using in practice is very high on the list, and I would have been fine waiting on forcing Apple to let you uninstall the camera app, or switching the iPhone to USB-C if it could have prevented this. This didn't come out of nowhere, we've known about manifest v3 for years now.

In fact Google's browser monopoly only looks like it's gonna get further cemented as Apple is forced to allow other browser engines, which is the only thing keeping any sort of competition against Chrome.

I feel like the anti-Apple snark that's been so popular since around the late 2000s (and I took part in in my angsty teen years) has been affecting the priority of what's being dealt with from regulators and it annoys me.

[beeflet]

>which is the only thing keeping any sort of competition against Chrome.

It's hardly competition. People complain about the safari monopoly on iOS because it lags behind competitors and has awful support for PWAs.

[bornfreddy]

There is reason for Apple to implement Google-mandated standards.

[WhyNotHugo]

> Lots of Firefox hate here, but little discussion about the articles kicker, which is the exclusion of uBlock Origin from Chrome.

I'll complain about Firefox a lot, because I'm exposed to all its issues. That doesn't mean I hate it: I see issues in all products that I use, even the ones that are really useful or essential. I'm sure I'm not unique in this aspect in the HN crowd.

[MattSayar]

My experience with uBlock Origin Lite seems basically the same. I also use NextDNS so that probably does a lot of heavy lifting too

[simooooo]

That’s the main reason for me using Firefox and uninstalling Chrome