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.
You don't need containers for this: https://total-cookie-protection-test.netlify.app/
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.
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)
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 :/
> 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Not exactly what you're looking for, but Temporary Containers (no longer maintained, fwiw) at least will open every new tab in a new temporary container that will be wiped after a configurable amount of time after closing.
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.
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.
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?
[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...
I guess AMP is being wound down but it was a play for shifting more of the Internet onto Google infrastructure.
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.
It's hardly competition. People complain about the safari monopoly on iOS because it lags behind competitors and has awful support for PWAs.
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.