This is Firefox's overhauled Privacy interface - gHacks Tech News

This is Firefox's overhauled Privacy interface

Mozilla plans to overhaul the privacy interfaces of the Firefox web browser in coming versions. Planned changes include interface modifications, detailed views of blocked and allowed items, and introduction of content blocking presets.

Current versions of the Firefox browser support content blocking that Mozilla added in Firefox 63 to the browser.

Firefox users may select to block detected trackers and third-party cookies in that version of the browser. While third-party cookie blocking was supported before, the new implementation improved the visibility of the option significantly.

All options are located on about:preferences#privacy. Content blocking is also exposed in the main Firefox menu and when users click on the site information icon on the left side of the URL of the activate website.

Note: The changes are still in development and it is possible that changes will be made to the functionality or the design.

Upcoming Privacy changes

content blocking firefox

Mozilla plans to improve the content blocking interfaces in future versions of Firefox. The organization works on a number of changes that it plans to roll out in 2019 to the Stable version of the web browser.

The biggest change, probably, is the introduction of content blocking presets. Firefox will support three: standard, strict, and custom

firefox content blocking standard strict custom

Standard is the default level. It blocks known trackers in private browsing windows and third-party cookies by default.

Balanced for protection and performance. Allows some trackers to websites function properly.

Strict blocks all known trackers based on the Disconnect list that Mozilla uses and all third-party cookies.

Blocks all trackers Firefox detects. May cause some sites to break.

Custom gives users full control over the blocking. They may enable or disable tracker and cookie blocking individually using that option.

Choose what to block

firefox site information privacy

The content blocking part of the site information panel is updated in the process as well. It displays the selected preset and highlights whether trackers or cookies were blocked on the active site.

Mozilla plans to add links to the panel that users may follow to display the identified trackers and all cookies and their status.

The screenshot above shows how Mozilla envisions that currently.

How is the new system different from the old?

Firefox 63 blocks detected trackers in private windows only. The browser does not block third-party cookies by default.

Firefox users may enable or disable the two privacy options separately on the privacy page of the settings of the browser.

The new default, as it seems, includes third-party tracking cookie blocking which makes the default level more effective in future versions.

Firefox users who want full control over the functionality can switch to custom to get the same level of control over the blocking as in Firefox 63.

The new option to display blocked trackers and the status of all cookies on any site you visit is a welcome change.

Now You: What is your take on the changes? (via Techdows)

Summary
This is Firefox's overhauled Privacy interface
Article Name
This is Firefox's overhauled Privacy interface
Description
Mozilla plans to overhaul the privacy interfaces of the Firefox web browser in coming versions to improve options and controls of users in regards to content blocking.
Author
Publisher
Ghacks Technology News
Logo
Advertisement

We need your help

Advertising revenue is falling fast across the Internet, and independently-run sites like Ghacks are hit hardest by it. The advertising model in its current form is coming to an end, and we have to find other ways to continue operating this site.

We are committed to keeping our content free and independent, which means no paywalls, no sponsored posts, no annoying ad formats or subscription fees.

If you like our content, and would like to help, please consider making a contribution:


Previous Post: «
Next Post: »

Comments

  1. Benjamin Morgentau said on October 28, 2018 at 9:06 am
    Reply

    I would be interested to understand the differences of the firefox technology to known blocker addons like ublockorigin or forgetmenot etc.. Is a central built in approach a better solution or a distribut3d approach with individual addons? ublockorigin and forgetmenot and decentraleyes do a great job as far as i understand it…

    1. Martin Brinkmann said on October 28, 2018 at 9:53 am
      Reply

      Good question. Firefox’s solution is built-in and probably more effective than third-party solutions when it comes to speed and resource usage (not tested, just my best guess).

      It is inferior when it comes to the blocking of content. Firefox blocks only trackers that are on the Disconnect list while third-party extensions such as uBlock Origin all elements.

      1. user17843 said on October 28, 2018 at 11:08 am
        Reply

        Could you do some benchmark test comparing different settings/addons with regards to third party connections?

      2. Klaas Vaak said on October 28, 2018 at 1:23 pm
        Reply

        @use17843: that is not Martin’s role. You should do your own benchmarking or engage a consultant to do it for you.

  2. noemata said on October 28, 2018 at 11:07 am
    Reply

    good news. keep it up, mozilla. but – maybe – the majority still won’t appreciate it. especially addon-addicts who defy a browser over its addons (complete madness), clinically ill paranoids who don’t know “a middle” or foolish brave – users (context: latest vivaldi thread) .

    i’m now doing well with the new cookie mode 4 (against whom i have scolded before) + strict protection (only disadvantage: it doesn’t load 3rd party videos. therefore it would be nice to let the user decide in the future, i.e. define exceptions, without having to change to basic protection) + cookies & site data : keep until firefox closed + important (but not many, especially in cookie mode 4) exceptions (allow/block) per context menu + killerfeature against cross-site-tracking during a session: privacy.firstparty.isolate .. et cetera (user.js).

    individual deletion of saved indexed.db and doom – storage content by privazer, unfortunately! there is still a lot of work to be done @mozilla. and please concentrate on ( + excessive) 1st party scripts too : https://twitter.com/PrHdb/status/1049746661138935818 (english users: translate) + 1st party mining – scripts (some behind a proxy).

  3. Vrai said on October 28, 2018 at 3:02 pm
    Reply

    Odd.
    I’m running Firefox 63 but do not have the ‘Custom’ settings option.
    My Browser Privacy Content Blocking settings page looks quite different than the screenshot Martin posted.
    Do you suppose it is because I am running FF on Linux? Perhaps the Linux version just hasn’t caught up yet?
    Martin, are the screenshots you posted from Firefox 63 or a newer version (nightly)?

    1. Martin Brinkmann said on October 28, 2018 at 3:49 pm
      Reply

      The screenshots are mockups of the upcoming change. The new interface is not available yet, not even in the latest Nightly version.

  4. K@ said on October 28, 2018 at 4:23 pm
    Reply

    The thing is, Mozilla have treated their customers very badly, of late. It would take something amazing for me to go back. It’s all a matter of trust and, once broken, trust is difficult to get back. They say that they block things. Do we believe them? Well, I don’t. Too much of what they’ve done, of late, has been kinda sneaky and badly thought out.

    Sad, really.

    1. Alex said on October 30, 2018 at 4:24 am
      Reply

      Can you specify what they’ve done that you disagree with? Also any ad or script blocking capability can be tested as far as I know, so it’s not really a matter of trust. Lot’s of security and privacy sites do hands on testing if you’re concerned about it. Plus, it’s open source, which makes it far more trustworthy than any proprietary browsers.

  5. Dilly Dilly said on October 28, 2018 at 4:43 pm
    Reply

    Is this another one of those musical chair dances where mozilla mixes everything up and invents new terminology but the end result is less control over settings and your privacy? Seems like mozilla is trying to add a sense of ‘fake security’ so users doesn’t feel the need to use proven 3rd party apps. I don’t think people with any intelligence are interested in giving blocking control to a known spyware company like mozilla. I moved on to Palemoon years ago and websites don’t like it, you know the ones. You run into a few inconveniences but nothing a power user can’t live without, just takes a click or two more.

    1. noemata said on October 28, 2018 at 7:33 pm
      Reply

      @Dilly^2: what is this “palemoon” again? a cult/sect, yes? and the sect – leader is called “moonchild”? could it be? would be the perfect name for a sect leader. or is this “palemoon” something envious, something regressive/antiquated, something stubborn, ignorant … in the _technical sense_ of course. i don’t remember it anymore… .

      i only know that this “palemoon – thing” always appears here when it comes to mozilla to claim that this “palemoon thing” is sooo much better and much less evil than mozilla: “palemoon” simply.

      it reads so harmoniously, peacefully, well. if it’s a cult/sect, i’m with it in times like these. i leave all the _supposed_ progress .. right now .. and live in perfect harmony .. and stagnation based on ignorance and false pride.

      1. bred said on October 29, 2018 at 3:16 pm
        Reply

        I have Firefox 63, Opera, Chrome and Pale Moon on my machine, but only use PM to surf the pale web.

      2. Chester said on October 30, 2018 at 2:05 am
        Reply

        Yes, you know it all. Keep smoking.

    2. manouche said on October 28, 2018 at 11:40 pm
      Reply

      Thank You so much for this overwhelming contribution to this debate!

      As a modest sign of appreciation, may I dedicate the world premiere of “The Dunning Kruger Song” to the remarkable and outstanding Palemoon Power User (PPU) .:。✿*゚Dilly Dilly゚・✿.。:.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdnH19KsVVc

      Thanks for listening … -`ღ´-…schmatz…-`ღ´-

      1. Peterc said on October 30, 2018 at 9:07 pm
        Reply

        @manouche: So … was that video of the Dunning-Kruger song about the guy who did the subtitles for that video of the Dunning-Kruger song? ;-)

    3. anon said on October 29, 2018 at 12:04 am
      Reply

      As a heavy user of extensions and someone who appreciates a “power user” approach to computing, I see where you’re coming from when you criticize Mozilla. They have made mistakes like Firefox OS and ignoring the quality of Firefox on mobile.

      But I wouldn’t call Mozilla a spyware company. They make a genuine effort to focus on privacy while using new data-driven technology where they can. And if you’re a power user, it is relatively simple to make Firefox work in a way that suits your privacy needs.

      I don’t see how Mozilla expanding privacy protections can be seen as a bad thing.

      1. K@ said on October 29, 2018 at 3:25 pm
        Reply

        Not a bad thing, no. But, they’ve buggered-up so many things, of late, that I just can’t bring myself to trust them. They’re too “in bed” with Google, now. I know they always have been, but Google seem to dictate almost everything they do, now. As I have Google totally blocked from my system, they don’t make very good, honest bedfellows.

        I moved to Vivaldi and I like that, a lot. But, sadly, their cookie handling is dire. So, my browser of preference, for almost everything, is still good ol’ Opera v12. It only breaks, for me, on one particular site, too.

        I use Otter, sometimes, but that’s still building itself and it’s not **quite** good enough, as yet.

        Basilisk, too, is kinda **getting there**, as it were. So, I only use that for testing things, really.

        When it comes to privacy, I’m just glad that some people are kind enough to present such things as UBlock and the like. Although, of course, some of the things that promote themselves as being aids to privacy are seriously NOT what they claim (Ghostery for example), so a deal of research is required.

      2. Anonymous said on October 29, 2018 at 11:58 pm
        Reply

        > But I wouldn’t call Mozilla a spyware company. They make a genuine effort to focus on privacy while using new data-driven technology where they can.

        Mozilla’s main source of income comes from allowing privacy invading search engines to collect search terms (and even every letter typed in the address bar even before pressing Return). That might be enough to call it a spyware company. But it doesn’t stop there. Lots of “telemetry” is sent by default. Safebrowsing sends private data to Google by default. And Firefox analyzes users interests and browsing history to help target browser ads. “new data-driven technology” is just an euphemism for spyware. At some point they even wanted to sell the users DNS queries to Cloudflare by default.

        Of course Mozilla Corp shouldn’t be trusted as a blocking list provider, and like Dilly said, they may be trying to replace more trustworthy blocking tools like ublock origin, people thinking they’re protected already.

        > And if you’re a power user, it is relatively simple to make Firefox work in a way that suits your privacy needs.

        So no privacy for the masses.

      3. Klaas Vaak said on October 30, 2018 at 11:45 am
        Reply

        @Anonymous:
        1. The user is responsible for search engines he/she uses, not Mozilla.
        2. What makes you say Mozilla are trying to replace uBO and the like?

      4. Anonymous said on October 30, 2018 at 4:06 pm
        Reply

        @Klaas
        1. In theory yes, all users are well informed and choose their engine carefully without being influenced by the default setting ; but in the real world this is a naive belief. Would Mozilla be paid something like 100 million dollars by a search engine just to be the default choice, if this default setting did not impact users choice of engine considerably ? Most of them will trust the default settings, or maybe ignore that it’s possible to change it, and ignore that to defend their privacy they actually *should* change it.
        Your reasoning is similar to that of people claiming that there’s generally speaking nothing wrong in having bad defaults for privacy because users can uncheck the bad boxes. In practice most of users don’t change their browser settings, they just trust the defaults when they should not.
        2. Like Dilly said, if people are led to believe that their browser protects them from trackers out of the box, they will less often do the effort of installing third-party software with a similar purpose.

      5. Klaas Vaak said on October 30, 2018 at 7:04 pm
        Reply

        @Anonymous: people who are concerned about their privacy will not accept Mozilla’s settings and tweak their browser’s settings, incl. the default search engine. Those who are not concerned about privacy will not bother and are therefore not disturbed by it, like they are not disturbed to use Facebook, Twitter and the like.

        So, to blame Mozilla for putting in the wrong default search engine, something that is in full view and not hidden, is disingenuous when everyone is ultimately responsible to ensure his/her own privacy is respected.

        And for those not happy with Mozilla’s “violation” of privacy there are plenty of other browsers out there, incl.some that market their privacy-oriented product.

      6. noemata said on October 30, 2018 at 3:01 pm
        Reply

        @ano

        1) also mozilla has to finance itself. just change the search engine to e.g. duckduckgo ect..

        2) phishing and malware protection:

        https://mzl.la/2yGuNKt ..

        2 policys. of course, this should be opt-in or better, removed. i have hope for the future. until then, deactivate.

        3) mozilla is well aware of the/your telemetry – dilemma (especially in paranoid times), which is however necessary to further develop the browser:

        https://mzl.la/2RnPQIB .

        also here, too, you can count on hope for the near future (as described in the article). in the meantime you can decide (for extremes or a middle and thus a little bit of trust, as described in the article) and set a kill switch:

        https://bit.ly/2PrM8jW .

        4) i use firefox: “i want to support mozilla”. “i don’t want to support mozilla”. “i want to support mozilla the way i want to”. decide. same as here, on ghacks .. (ps: = on cloudflare = evil, because cloudflare is a “company” .. and yes, a devilish expression resonates in space now .. “centralized” (well, an “exclusionary-decentralized-capitalistic-network-for-all-greedy-leprechauns” is not much better .. as well as an “exclusionary-decentralized-network-for-all-non-leprechauns”).

        5) DoH is a gain in security & cloudflare has the best infrastructure worldwide. it was predestined for such an experiment (as long as there is a lack of european – alternatives with an equally good infrastructure, it is better to remain silent – the same applies if you live in a safe country). and so far it was just an _experiment_. and as you can read here, alternatives to cloudflare will also be tested in the future:

        https://mzl.la/2Psg1AC

        6) don’t listen to extremists. one example:

        https://invidio.us/channel/UCjr2bPAyPV7t35MvcgT3W8Q .

        in a video for example he scolds almost everything and in the same breath he recommends the “brave browser” ( @ latest vivaldi – article). what a paradox. one has to find compromises, that’s all. the “block-everything-approach”_ is logically not sustainable in the future_ & and over time makes you mentally ill.

        ps: whom am i supposed to _trust_ …? my isp, google dns, cloudflare dns, some “european – students – dns – service – somewhere – in – norway” …. ? who’s going to dissolve a domain name for me? who gives me DNSSEC if my isp does not support that? should i use dnscrypt & co. .. this sluggish, non-elegant things (which will also die out soon)?

        pps: best of all, i switch off the computer and the smartphone is only used for making phone calls.

        ppps: i can hardly wait for the quantum – computer times & their “quantum – computing – extremists” (maybe our brain is already a uqc. this whould be explain everything).

      7. Anonymous said on October 30, 2018 at 9:05 pm
        Reply

        @noemata

        “also mozilla has to finance itself.”

        The whole linux OS was developed without resorting to adware or spyware as far as I know.

        “phishing and malware protection: […] this should be opt-in or better, removed.”

        Or simply the checks could have been made purely locally, this would have been the obvious, easy and private way to design it. But not Google/Mozilla’s way.

        “telemetry […] which is however necessary to further develop the browser”

        Software was developed efficiently long before the opt-out telemetry cancer.

        “on cloudflare = evil, because cloudflare is a “company” ”
        “DoH is a gain in security”
        “alternatives to cloudflare will also be tested”
        “whom am i supposed to _trust_ …? my isp, google dns, cloudflare dns, some “european – students – dns – service – somewhere – in – norway” …. ?”

        Sending domain names to cloudflare, google, Norway or others won’t hide them from your internet service provider. The security motivation is a lie. It doesn’t matter to me whether the people who lied were a company, leprechauns or anything else.

        “who gives me DNSSEC if my isp does not support that?”

        TLS already authenticates domains, I have no trouble sleeping without DNSSEC. From what I’ve understood, in the long run, this thing is mainly about applications like DANE that transfer the trust from scattered certificate authorities to the people who control the DNS root (guess who).

        “and so far it was just an _experiment_”

        I know. It remains extremely alarming that they wanted at some point to make it the default for all users.

        “don’t listen to extremists. one example:”

        That’s a straw man.

        “he recommends the “brave browser” ( @ latest vivaldi – article). what a paradox”

        Brave stinks, we agree. Same mindset as MozCo.

        “one has to find compromises, that’s all. the “block-everything-approach”_ is logically not sustainable in the future_ & and over time makes you mentally ill.”

        Most of people do not have a spyware overblocking problem, rather the opposite one. We need more people exposing bad practices, not more people justifying them, the companies already pay people lots of money to do that part.

        “the smartphone is only used for making phone calls”

        The non smart phones do that well too, they don’t carry Google around, and are less expensive :-)

        “i can hardly wait for the quantum – computer times & their “quantum – computing – extremists” (maybe our brain is already a uqc. this whould be explain everything”

        I didn’t get that part ?

      8. manouche said on October 30, 2018 at 10:06 pm
        Reply

        Quote: “whom am i supposed to _trust_ …? [ff.]”

        May I suggest:

        Methods of identity splitting can distribute “the real self” („Ooops!“) to different digital identities with acceptable effort — there are way more users than citizens ;~)

      9. Tom Hawack said on October 30, 2018 at 11:42 pm
        Reply

        @noemata, “whom am i supposed to _trust_ …?”
        “In God we trust, everybody else pays cash”. Trust is problematic. To trust what? One’s honesty, one’s aptitude? To trust who? Those we love be they inapt, those we hate should we consider them apt? Only those we love and consider talented? Tough conditions to have a rational approach of trust. I’d say trust in yourself first and from there on you’ll minimize the risk of failure inherent to trusting in anyone else as well as to trust in no one nor in nothing. Those who trust systematically are often naive, those who distrust systematically are often cynical. It’s a balance, like all the root sentiments in life.

      10. manouche said on October 31, 2018 at 8:22 am
        Reply

        Oh là là!

        “I’d say trust in yourself first and from there on you’ll minimize the risk of failure [sic?]”

        Every morning T. Hawack cross-examine his best friend in the mirror —
        then they say to each other:

        “Tom, I think this is the end of a terrible animosity …
        And You …
        You must imagine that I am a trustworthy person!
        If you dont’t agree, let’s take it outside …”

      11. Tom Hawack said on October 31, 2018 at 11:19 am
        Reply

        @manouche, what you describe is called introspection, no need of a mirror for that! “I think therefor I am” and not “I see myself therefor I am”. The mirror helps me only to remember how handsome I am, to comb and to shave, sometimes to see her smiling face in back of me :=)

        Don’t be so sarcastic. If you’re striving for truth no need to consider the only path is animosity!

      12. Klaas Vaak said on October 31, 2018 at 12:00 pm
        Reply

        @Tom Hawack: well said.

    4. Dilly Dilly said on October 29, 2018 at 7:29 am
      Reply

      Must’ve hit a nerve. Thanks for the lolz!

      1. manouche said on October 30, 2018 at 10:28 pm
        Reply

        “Must’ve hit a nerve.”

        …an indication that we are humans, characterized by erect posture and bipedal locomotion and a general trend toward larger, more complex brains. The latter impossible to recognize among any sect members.

        *plonk*

      2. Anonymous said on October 31, 2018 at 9:37 am
        Reply

        “The latter impossible to recognize among any sect members.”

        Honestly, I see more sect-like behavior among people who irrationally defend every Firefox wrongdoing against themselves. Even though they’re not the ones whose salary is threatened by the existence of forks. Not every minority group with strong dissenting opinions is a sect. We’re even lucky we’re given a chance to breathe when monopolies start to really misbehave.

      3. manouche said on October 31, 2018 at 1:02 pm
        Reply

        Quote:
        “the ones whose salary is threatened by the existence of forks.”

        I see! We get closer to the truth ↔ the existence of forks.

        Forks … isn’t that the point of open source software to give you the right to fork? Aren’t you free to take the code, modify it and distribute it yourself, in case you are unhappy with how it is developed?
        I don’t get your point, how this principles and practice of sharing can threaten “your salary” in particular, unless you are desperate to capitalize other developers work, and that’s the sole purpose of your fork.

        Another conundrum remains: What the hell has this to do with that – as you claimed – “irrationally defend(ing of) every Firefox wrongdoing”? Is it, because no one never pressed your “ always rightdoing fork” donation button? … and that’s the driving force why you are trying to convince me and others of all this “Firefox wrongdoing”?!

        Dear Father well-known Rabuleius!
        I insist of my right of “irrational defending”: You are free to fork Your Collection Bag at some else …

        Quote:
        “Not every minority group with strong dissenting opinions is a sect.”
        No one said that either.

        Amen! Now pass the Booze!

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gl_TD9dgVDo

      4. Anonymous said on October 31, 2018 at 2:33 pm
        Reply

        @manouche

        “I don’t get your point”
        You probably misunderstood me. I meant that it was a great thing that people could fork software in general and Firefox in particular considering its misbehavior. I also said that I could understand that Mozilla’s employees defend Firefox wrongdoings as their salary depends on it, but that for users that would be irrational.

        “I see! We get closer to the truth ↔ the existence of forks.”
        “you are desperate to capitalize other developers work, and that’s the sole purpose of your fork”
        “Is it, because no one never pressed your “ always rightdoing fork” donation button? … and that’s the driving force why you are trying to convince me and others of all this “Firefox wrongdoing”?!”
        “You are free to fork Your Collection Bag at some else”

        I would have preferred rational counter-argumentation instead of a paranoid witch hunt accusation of being a Palemoon employee. But as you said,

        “I insist of my right of “irrational defending””

        So I won’t insist.

      5. manouche said on October 31, 2018 at 9:18 pm
        Reply

        “I meant that [ff.]”
        “I also said [rabula rabula] that I could understand that [and so on …]”

        Hein quoi? This is what you wrote:
        “→ *the ones* ← whose salary is threatened by the existence of forks.”
        and that is what counts now in first place.

        Ergo, this leaves to any reader the freedom to express, your foggy “the ones” could be anyone – but excluding Mozillas employees.
        I just took this opportunity, to ask some pille palle hypothetical questions out into the blue sky, accompanied by random thoughts ;~) … but never spelled “Pale Moon” out in any way. Got this point?

        But wait …
        Eh voilà, also including a “Palemoon employee” as YOU rushed to mention now! And that’s what you quickly call “a paranoid witch hunt accusation of being a Palemoon employee”? Hmmm … do they have any?

        Why excluding “Mozillas employees”?
        Because it’s *irrational* to work on open software projects if you have fears, your salary could be threatened “by the existence of forks”.
        But notorious you tried and still try to insinuate now, that Mozilla’s employees fear forks, because it’s a threat for their salaries.

        How do you know that?
        Do you have a secret affair with that foxy lady, working overhours in Mozillas salary department?

        And what forks?
        Pardon, would you please name any of this mysterious threatening forks.

        How do you know, “Mozilla’s employees defend Firefox wrongdoings as their salary depends on it” – as you insinuate even one more time.
        Dit you google it? By starring at the Full Moon? C’mon … waning crescent, next Full Moon will be on november 23.

        Oha … “defend wrongdoings as their salary depends on it”
        Didn’t know until now, that they hired some unemployed Wall Street bankers.

        No more further questions, I rest my case and trust the other readers to find out by them self, who that *irrational* guy is.

        … and another frog fell in the well
        .
        .
        .
        *plonk*

  6. Paul(us) said on October 28, 2018 at 8:54 pm
    Reply

    Will there be an integrated possibility to backup all the changes (tweakings) that I am making to the privacy interface?
    Or do I have to relay to main gold old Mozbackup to backup all the privacy-tweaking settings (, this because I never could get FEBE to work correctly (And I am not the only one who is struggling with FEBE)) together with everything else?

    Maybe also a thought about any other Firefox settings backup program (Not FEBE) with the same easy handling?

    1. Yuliya said on October 29, 2018 at 9:01 am
      Reply

      I make a copy of the folder “Mozilla” located in “C:\Users\username\AppData\Roaming\”. It’s enough to backup everything related to Firefox.

      1. Klaas Vaak said on October 29, 2018 at 12:08 pm
        Reply

        @Yuliya: isn’t possible to narrow that down to the profile folder?

      2. Yuliya said on October 29, 2018 at 1:02 pm
        Reply

        Sure, you could go further to “\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\” and backup just the specific profile folder, mines something like “********.default”, but there’s also a “profiles.ini” in “”\Mozilla\Firefox\” which describes the active profile. And outside of the actual profile folder all others are empty here. I personally find it just easier to create an achive out of the entire “Mozilla” folder and restore it when neded.

  7. John C. said on October 29, 2018 at 11:55 am
    Reply

    Although personally I think that this is going to be a change for the good, it still would be nice if the chess game between browsers and advertisers mellowed out and some stability returned. If they don’t mellow out, advertisers are going to ruin the internet the same way they’ve completely ruined television in America.

    1. John Fenderson said on October 29, 2018 at 4:54 pm
      Reply

      @John C. ” advertisers are going to ruin the internet”

      The web, not the internet, and on that score I think they already have.

  8. Steven said on October 30, 2018 at 4:27 am
    Reply

    How are we supposed to surmise whether these pictures you have in your article are mockups or the real McCoy…when we can’t even see them. I’m viewing your site on a Dell s2715h monitor…and they’re still to small to read/view. What’s the point of posting these photos if you’re viewers can’t clearly see what’s going on in them?

    1. Martin Brinkmann said on October 30, 2018 at 6:28 am
      Reply

      Steve, if you use Firefox, right-click on the image and select View Image, in Chrome, right-click and select Open Image in new tab.

Leave a Reply

Check the box to consent to your data being stored in line with the guidelines set out in our privacy policy

Please note that your comment may not appear immediately after you post it.