Facebook container extension prevents facebook tracking in firefox – ghacks tech news

From device telemetry that companies collect over software specific diagnostics to online tracking. Online tracking with cookies is probably the most common form but there are other ways to track users online that use other types of temporary or permanent bits of data placed on the user device, or fingerprinting.

Any link that you click in the Facebook tab gets opened in it unless it points to a third-party site. If that is the case, that site will not be opened in the Facebook container but outside of it. A click on a YouTube link opens YouTube outside of the container, a link that points to another Facebook page inside.

When you install the extension in Firefox, all your Facebook cookies get deleted and you are logged out of Facebook.


The next time you open Facebook you will notice that it opens in the Container, indicated with a blue icon and the name Facebook in the Firefox address bar. You need to sign in again as the container handles cookies and other things independently.

One downside to Facebook being isolated in its own container in the Firefox browser is that some features may not work properly anymore. Sites that support account registration or sign ins using Facebook credentials can’t be used anymore with a Facebook account. How good is the protection?

Facebook Container is a privacy extension for the Firefox web browser that limits Facebook tracking on the Internet. It does so by isolating Facebook from the rest of the Internet but that comes at the cost of some functionality (share, like, sign in) that won’t work properly anymore.

Firefox users have plenty of other options at their disposal to limit Facebook tracking. They can use a different browser profile or different browser for Facebook, access Facebook only on your mobile, clear cookies regularly, or use content blockers with social blocklists.

I block them on several levels, including some filters in UBO for social buttons etc, and by some other scripts. I’ve always been a little shocked how many things “connect” to FB behind the scenes. Even my bank, for goodness sakes (Barclays).

Snowden was a gift from god (IMO) , and if something good can come out of this that helps people to reassess their privacy, then it will have been another gift. It has been such a long time coming!! I have wondered why (and still do) so many people seem to care so little about their privacy.

Let us hope, let us really hope that this does not soon get forgotten, and that momentum builds. Again, only my opinion….but I think “most” (not all) forms of Social Media are like a cancer on society. Yes…there are some good reasons to have it too, I accept that, but in so many ways, society has not benefited, and in so many ways, old values, old good fashioned manners, are what really count, and FB has not helped those values to thrive in our digital world.

Lastly, FB is really just now a surveillance tool for governments and three letter agencies. I thank so much, my decision never to be a part of all that, and I have no data connected with any service like that. I have nothing to delete, but I hope that as many people as possible get back their lives and their privacy. If that’s what is right for them, of course.

Indeed. Maybe are there values we follow and others, deeply anchored. No idea i.e. how some of us would consider a law authorizing to kill someone robbing you : what would prevail, law or consciousness? For those who guide their values by following those of others, when the others are leading figures who happen to remind everyone their disagreement with a company’s policy then,maybe, will the followers change their minds? A pity nevertheless than our era is maybe more than ever an era of manipulation, be it for the best as for the worse.

1- The way social medias are deployed. I mean that I wouldn’t disagree with a social media which would stay at home and not follow its users not to mention all of us, which would, say, deploy a webextension for those who wish to stay in “live-touch” with their social account wherever they go on the Web. But not as it is now, when users are used an not served.

2- The way people (some, few, many?) behave o, social medias, confined to hysterical, excessively passionate, dangerously disrespectful attitudes, comments, words. Makes me wonder if misery is not far more factual than I would believe it is. In French we have these two words, “peuple” and “populace”, “people” and “populace” is it in English? People, together, move a world towards its best when the populace cuts the heads of innocent aristocrats, the populace spits of the presumption of innocence when the people celebrate the communion of their souls, be it for a concert, be it for God. I’d search for the people should I embrace a social media, i’d fear the populace.

> “Snowden was a gift from god (IMO)”. I’d consider his action was inevitable, maybe even foreseeable if taken into consideration the errs of a mind, of a soul when in the situation of performing what is likely to establish a clash with his consciousness. In a way I’d say Snowden’s choices were necessary in a naturalistic way, as a thunderstorm when the weather conditions are united. A thunder may strike but it remains in the course of nature’s deployment.

@Anonymous, I wouldn’t evoke pride to state that I’m in the same state of mind as that you describe. I don’t know if I’m right, hard to be objective, but I do know that if pride means striving successfully for an idea, because I strive not, I have no reason of being proud. “Pride” is a word more and more used nowadays to describe the fact of not being ashamed, which is different.

I”m not ashamed of being “oldschool: no social networks, no smartphone, no whatsapp.”. Real life shouldn’t be mistaken with virtual relationships. Of course life sneaks into all dialogs because behind words there are thoughts. I recall some twenty years ago where I read in the papers someone searching for an epistolary relationship : it lasted perhaps a year, most interesting though not a “real” relationship as we may understand it.

What I mean is that in my view the debate about social networks is maybe less about its (pseudo) anonymity than about is factory aspect. Factory because debating among 2 billion people cannot guarantee authenticity, factory because of the way these networks are organized and meant to be — a source of income — we entertain there work more than we could be entertained by leisure. People on the major social networks are profitable for the owners of those factories.

Lack of authenticity, source of income. Also brain-washing by the numerous sources of fake news. Fake news aren’t provided by CNN but they are (at least) accepted by Facebook. Facebook, a company that closes an account because a user included the painting ‘Le radeau de la Méduse” where the breast appears (even if the company reverted later on) but hardly kicks out promotion of armament, racist, segregation and hateful comments.