Firefox 78: Close Multiple Tabs options moved to submenu - gHacks Tech News

ADVERTISEMENT

Firefox 78: Close Multiple Tabs options moved to submenu

Mozilla plans to make a change to the tab right-click menu in the Firefox web browser that moves options to close multiple tabs to a submenu.

You get a number of options when you right-click on a tab in Firefox; these range from reloading and muting the tab to bookmarking it or closing it. Up until now, options to "close tabs to the right" and "close other tabs" were listed alongside these options.

firefox old right-click context menu

The options to close multiple tabs in Firefox will be moved to the "Close Multiple Tabs" submenu from Firefox 78 onward. Firefox users who use the options need to move the mouse cursor over the new entry before they may select one of the listed options.

new close multiple tabs menu

Note: The change landed in Nightly and should be considered not final at this point. It is possible that things will be changed further or that changes are reverted.

Mozilla's motivation behind the change is that it noticed that users were activating the options by accident, and that moving the items to the submenu would make it less likely that users were hitting these close actions by accident.

These were moved to a submenu because people were accidentally clicking them when trying to do non-destructive operations.

Veteran Firefox users may remember that Mozilla tried to make the change about two years ago but decided against it before it landed in the Stable version of the web browser.

Back then, the reasoning was that Mozilla wanted to avoid increasing the number of entries in context menu when it added new options to the context menu.

The change was made to introduce new actions into the context menu (i.e move tab) while not increasing the number of menu items in the context menu by moving less utilized actions into a sub menu. This is part of a larger series of changes to reorganize and update the context menu to accommodate multi-select tabs. Unfortunately, there will be trade-offs but the hope is that these new functions would be beneficial to the user.

The bug listing does not reveal why the change was not made back then and why it was reverted.

Closing Words

I never use the options that Mozilla plans to move to a submenu but some users are not pleased about the change. If you are one of them you may want to head over to Techdows as you find listed there a CSS script that restores the old context menu.

Changes like the planned one will always annoy some users but the number of users affected by the change is unknown. Mozilla may have the numbers and also may have an estimate on the number of users hitting the close multiple tabs options by accident.

The better option, generally speaking, is to keep the old functionality as an option. Mozilla could have made it a setting, or could introduce menu editing options so that users who use these closing options could re-add them.

Extensions like Menu Editor or Menu Filter are unfortunately no longer compatible with recent versions of Firefox. It allowed you to change the menu to your liking by adding or removing options.

Now You: do you use the multi-close options in Firefox (or another browser)?

Summary
Firefox 78: Close Multiple Tabs options moved to submenu
Article Name
Firefox 78: Close Multiple Tabs options moved to submenu
Description
Mozilla plans to make a change to the tab right-click menu in the Firefox web browser that moves options to close multiple tabs to a submenu.
Author
Publisher
Ghacks Technology News
Logo
Advertisement

Previous Post: «
Next Post: »

Comments

  1. Iron Heart said on June 5, 2020 at 3:31 pm

    I’ve got the exact same tab options when I right-click on any tab in Brave. Except that they are not hidden away in a submenu… Cheerio, I’d say.

    The best tab management of all browsers is present in Vivaldi, I have to admit, despite not using Vivaldi personally. Their implementation, incl. tab stacking, is truly exemplary.

    1. Almad said on June 5, 2020 at 7:38 pm

      You may think that but I don’t particularly like the way vivaldi have implemented tab stacking.

    2. Anonymous said on June 7, 2020 at 5:13 pm

      *Link to controversy surrounding Brave affiliate links* [Editor: kept link, had to edit text]
      https://twitter.com/BrendanEich/status/1269289242905042944

      1. Pants said on June 7, 2020 at 7:00 pm

        FWIW, I have the exact same tab options in my AWESOME™ Browser, except they’re not hidden away in a submenu. I can change it using standard options, hotkeys, magical gestures from across the room, and my home lighting app.

        AWESOME™ Browser has the best tab management ever, and what’s more, when I’m in Australia, the entire chrome interface automatically switches to being upside down. “So awesome”®.

        AWESOME™ Browser is the best ever, try it out you guys

      2. Iron Heart said on June 8, 2020 at 6:40 am

        @Anonymous

        You are certainly aware that…

        – Only happened on binance.com. Binance was marked as a “partner link” to begin with, it was also marked as an “ad” on the New Tab Page. What do you expect when deliberately clicking on an ad?

        – It is already fixed.

        – Firefox does the same thing, i.e. it also identifies their users as Firefox users. ref=firefox and similar things come to mind.

        What is your point?

        PS: Even if that was not just silly hyperbole, which it is, I have seen much worse. For example, Firefox Preview on Android comes with hardcoded trackers (Leanplum, Adjust, Google Analytics) that actually spy on you while circumventing all anti-spy measures you put in place. That is far worse, but as always, Mozilla gets a pass. Yawn.

      3. Pants said on June 8, 2020 at 11:36 am

        Look, I don’t have skin in this game, I don’t care about Brave, but what you just wrote is just a hypocrisy filled BS load of nonsense – so I’m going to call you out on it.


        You would think you could actually get the facts about your own browser correct
        – It’s not about the binance widget on the home page. If you click that, there is a referral. 100% fair and okay (if you like adverts and crap in your sponsored backgrounds or whatever)
        – It’s about adding referals to typed domains and suggestions in the urlbar
        – It wasn’t just binance, there are other domains etc as well (go look it up yourself)

        It’s not about privacy (everyone is using the same referal), it’s not even about generating or leveraging any money streams, it’s about trust and transparency

        Stop defending it, and just own it, like a man. Even your beloved leader is profusely apologizing because he knows what was done was just plain BS, sneaky, dirty, and a very bad look: no matter how he’s trying to spin it.

        > ref=firefox and similar things come to mind

        Completely invalid.

        Firefox adds referals to **searches** and is **transparent** about it. Monetizing search engine deals is legitimate and widespread, and just like this Brave referal is not a privacy issue (everyone is the same: and the search engine knows what browser you’re on anyway). There is nothing sketchy about what Firefox and other browsers do here.

        But Brave is altering **typed domains**, they made a deliberate decision to do this (it’s not some mistake), weren’t transparent and hoped no-one would notice.

        Here’s you beloved leader: https://twitter.com/BrendanEich/status/1269421487011713030?s=19

        > We were treating it like a search query (which all big browsers do tag with an affiliate id to get paid from by the search provider). But a valid domain name is not a search query.

        Even he says what Firefox does is normal. Even he can tell the difference between a search engine deal and what he did.

        > blah blah drivel Android blah blah ranting

        Completely invalid: Oooh, but .. umm … HER EMAILS!! BENGHAZI!!! LOCK HER UP!!!! More aboutwhatism and on something that has zero comparability

        > It is already fixed

        Of course they fixed it (has it been rolled out to all users?), because what they did was wrong. That’s not the point: the point is WHAT they did in the first place, and if they will learn from it.

        In future when you bring up any mistake Mozilla may have done in the past, I’ll just say “It is already fixed” and watch your hypocrisy rear itself again

      4. Iron Heart said on June 8, 2020 at 1:00 pm

        @Pants

        *Yawn* It’s you again, still raising invalid points yourself.

        The referal link was created because Brave’s partners would otherwise have no clue whether you use Chrome or Brave (Brave uses Chrome’s user agent). In order to identify Brave users, one referal link for one website (Binance) was created.

        The added referal code was the same for all Brave users, other than telling Binance that you were using Brave, the referal link did absolutely nothing, and couldn’t be used to identify any single Brave user. You said it yourself:

        > and just like this Brave referal is not a privacy issue

        Not. a. privacy. issue. You are always bringing stuff up that is wholly irrelevant and invalid yourself, never ever have you brought a “real” privacy issue of Brave, as in PII being leaked, to the table. Never ever… Probably because you couldn’t find one despite searching with a passion. You are just trolling me at this point, I feel.

        > Stop defending it, and just own it, like a man.

        What is there for me to defend? As you said, it was never a privacy issue to begin with, it was just “bad conduct”. And as I said, I have seen much worse in the industry (*cough* hard-coded trackers *cough*).

        And no, it’s no different from what Mozilla does, they are adding identifying strings for Firefox users as well, in order to show that Firefox is being used, and they are also the same for all FF users.

        Bringing up Firefox’s trackers is also not “whataboutism” (You really like that word salad, don’t you?) or whatever, I just included that to demonstrate that Mozilla always (and I really mean: always) gets a pass for things that are much worse and happen to be actual privacy issues, while Brave gets flak for things that are not privacy issues to begin with, especially from you and other Moz fanboys.

        Give it a rest. Eich apologized because altering links is considered “bad conduct”, no matter if the altered link really is a privacy issue, or not. It wasn’t a privacy issue in this case, and so long as that is the case, I take no issue with it, no matter what “Pants”, creator of some obscure user.js, thinks about it.

        > In future when you bring up any mistake Mozilla may have done in the past,

        So, did they remove the hard-coded Android trackers, or are they still in there? Is it fixed?

      5. Pants said on June 8, 2020 at 1:34 pm

        > The referal link was created because…
        Once again, the issue is not why a referal is used

        > Not. a. privacy. issue
        Once again, the issue is not about any privacy aspect – which is exactly why I mentioned it (because some people think it is – see, I’m using facts and being objective, even if it helps your argument), for the readers’ benefit

        Thanks for agreeing with me

        > it’s no different from what Mozilla does
        Once again, this is not the same thing, at all: even Eich says that

        > Bringing up Firefox’s trackers is also not “whataboutism”
        Yes it is. Look it up. It’s also false equivalency. Educate yourself.

        > creator of some obscure user.js
        Thanks: Here’s a link for people: make sure to read the ready me and qualifying statements
        https://github.com/ghacksuserjs/ghacks-user.js

        The issue is one of transparency and trust. That’s what I said, that’s what you should be acknowledging. After my last comment you now (not in your first post) refer to it as “bad conduct” – that’s what I’m talking about

        So thanks for agreeing with me that this was bad conduct and owning up to the fact that Brave did a shitty thing (intentional or not)

      6. Iron Heart said on June 8, 2020 at 2:20 pm

        @Pants

        > Once again, the issue is not why a referal is used

        I know, I know… “Transparency and trust” blah blah… The referal link was totally inconsequential, no single Brave user could possibly have been identified because of it. It’s a non-issue, you are once again (not a new phenomenon when it comes to you) making a mountain out of a molehill. But whatever, I know you for a while now, not surprised at all.

        > Once again, the issue is not about any privacy aspect – which is exactly why I mentioned it (because some people think it is – see, I’m using facts and being objective, even if it helps your argument), for the readers’ benefit

        You still invoke the appearance that it is a bigger issue than what it really is, by virtue of being deliberately histrionic about it. This totally inconsequential “issue” IMHO doesn’t even warrant posting about it, let alone annoying me because of it.

        > Thanks for agreeing with me

        Yes, I am in agreement that it is not a privacy issue. But then, knowing that, why do we have to discuss it? Only because of immaterial values like “transparency” that have no measurable net benefit aside from virtue signaling?

        > Once again, this is not the same thing, at all: even Eich says that

        Eich is still heavily under pressure from people who have no clue at all, today. It is the same thing, both methods are used to make it clear which browser you run, and have no consequence aside from giving a website exactly that info. There is no difference.

        > Yes it is. Look it up. It’s also false equivalency. Educate yourself.

        I’ve made my point, Mozilla gets away with things that are objectively and provably worse, in that PII is being leaked or outright collected, while Brave hasn’t leaked PII so far. That’s not a false equivalency at all.

        > Thanks: Here’s a link for people: make sure to read the ready me and qualifying statements

        It would surprise me if this self-advertisement of yours gains you any users after having come up with so much BS so recently.

        And it’s still somewhat ironic that you criticize Brave for irrelevancies like this, but never lose much sleep over Firefox being able to silently execute highly privileged, remotely downloaded code without informing the user at all (FF Experiments). Hypocrite, so much for “transparency and trust”.

        > The issue is one of transparency and trust.

        So, what consequence did actually materialize for the user here? Was any PII leaked? No? If not, then whatever. Lack of virtue signaling is hardly an argument against them, and not something I have the time to discuss.

        To be clear: Until something like them secretly stealing any kind of user data (or similar) is proven, I won’t criticize them for non-issues. I just don’t have time to waste to rave about the lack of immaterial virtue signaling, like you do.

        > That’s what I said, that’s what you should be acknowledging.

        I said that it was bad conduct, and that is really all it was, because no actual consequence for the user ever materialized here.

        > After my last comment you now (not in your first post) refer to it as “bad conduct” – that’s what I’m talking about

        You know, there is a term when people try to make out tiny weeny faults (which are sometimes imagined, i.e. not really there) in an otherwise great picture on a TV: It’s called “pixel peeping”. What you do to my texts is the textual equivalent of “pixel peeping”. Whether I used a term before or not is irrelevant, as long as I never said that it was a good thing. My first reply never implied that it was a good thing, it merely stated that it was inconsequential, which indeed it was.

        > So thanks for agreeing with me that this was bad conduct and owning up to the fact that Brave did a shitty thing (intentional or not)

        This “shitty thing”, which other browsers also do 1:1 and which bore no bad consequence whatsoever for the user. Got it. Thanks for wasting my time – again.

        PS: You didn’t reply to my question regarding whether or not Firefox Preview still has the Leanplum, Adjust, Google Analytics trackers baked into the codebase… After I invested so much time taliking about the non-issues you brought up, I am somewhat disappointed that you do not return the favor by answering such a simple question… Disappointed, I tell you!

      7. Pants said on June 8, 2020 at 3:54 pm

        Keep showing that ignorance, bias, hypocrisy, and total lack of comprehensibility

        > still somewhat ironic that you criticize Brave

        I’m not criticizing Brave, I’m criticizing **you** and just how stupid your arguments are. You’re so pre-judgemental you’re jumping to conclusions – trying to defend against things no-one accused them of, and using invalid points that have no bearing or relation to the actual problem

        > My first reply never implied that it was a good thing, it merely stated that it was inconsequential, which indeed it was

        No, your first reply didn’t even properly identify or address the actual issue (and it has nothing to do with sponsored links in some shitty background)

        > a term when people try to make out tiny weeny faults

        Oh you mean when you try to talk up how Brave’s transparency is so awesome compared to Firefox because they provide an in-browser viewing (pure privacy theater) of their blocklist and Firefox doesn’t.

        Or do you mean when you quote every single line back to others with an in-depth analysis

        > … I won’t criticize them for non-issues

        Wouldn’t expect anything less from you, because you’re biased. You can’t acknowledge that this whole episode is not good – even your beloved boss can, he’s apologizing.. oophs, sorry, cut him some slacks guys, he’s just misunderstood and under heavy pressure … and cut Brave some slack, they’re a young company and and only been going for four years. Whaaa whaaaaa. Someone call a wambulance, You should read what you post – everyone can see it.

  2. glitsj16 said on June 5, 2020 at 4:53 pm

    Personally I do use the multi-close tab options, so this is another annoyance. Even more worrysome is the disinterest in alphabetically ordering (sub)menu’s. These things are still textual information, and having to go through all items to find what you need is ridiculous. For Firefox in particular it’s still possible to sanitize the menu order via userChrome.css (-moz-box-ordinal-group), at least that’s something…

    1. Almad said on June 5, 2020 at 7:39 pm

      Context menu’s are rarely sorted alphabetically but in the most used first for obvious reasons.

  3. Thaumiel said on June 5, 2020 at 9:07 pm

    Seems like the least destructive change made lately. I don’t personally use often enough to feel disturbed by spending half a second more time to do this particular action, however I think using submenus for avoiding misclicks is a suboptimal solution, perhaps a better grouping of the options? I think Undo Close Tabs should’ve been first in the current menu.

  4. Kenny said on June 5, 2020 at 11:42 pm

    Change it back PLEASE !!! I use “Close tabs to the right” quite often. Now, it takes TWO clicks after searching the context menu for it.

    1. Deke said on June 8, 2020 at 3:47 am

      I just checked – if I right-click a tab then the ‘close tabs to the right’ option is listed 4th from the bottom of the menu, the same as it’s always been.
      If there are no tabs to the right that choice is greyed out.

  5. Yuliya said on June 6, 2020 at 12:15 am

    In Chromium I can select a tab, then shift-click on other tab, selecting everything in between, then Ctrl+W to close them. Memefox can’t do this? “Close to the right” is such a cavemen concept, what if you don’t want to close the last two tabs for instance?

    1. I-Flex said on June 6, 2020 at 3:54 am

      Know your facts before you speak.

  6. Steve Sharp said on June 6, 2020 at 12:16 am

    I like Brave, they seem to lag behind on keeping chromium up to date (makes me feel like they don’t take security seriously enough). Earlier this week they were two versions behind chromium. I don’t know if they are backporting critical bug fixes though.

    Firefox feels likes its in the best shape it has been in a long time. I still get distracted by other browser though ;O)

    1. Iron Heart said on June 6, 2020 at 7:27 am

      A new build based on Chromium 83 is pending for release, in case you feel insecure:

      https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/releases/tag/v1.10.86

      1. Pants said on June 6, 2020 at 6:31 pm

        Is that the Brave update that finally fixes the at least 3+ month old bug where thousands of unsolicited connections per day to 3rd parties were being made?

      2. Iron Heart said on June 7, 2020 at 8:24 am

        @Pants

        Please stop being obnoxious, we have discussed that a thousand times already, * [Editor: removed]. No PII was ever sent to any domain here, they just pulled the current BAT exchange rate from an outside source, this is necessary to show users how much their BAT is worth in USD. And yes, the Brave browser does that more than once per day, what a surprise, imagine my shock.

        It is not unsolicited (it’s part of a known core feature of the browser, after all), and how often a domain is hit says nothing, only THAT it is hit is important. Everything else is unecessary BS you only put in so that your assertions appear more scary to dumb people.

        And I think you shouldn’t be that big-mouthed about requests being made; the following domains must be silenced in Firefox:

        0.0.0.0 activations.cdn.mozilla.net
        0.0.0.0 aus5.mozilla.org
        0.0.0.0 crash-stats.mozilla.com
        0.0.0.0 detectportal.firefox.com
        0.0.0.0 experiments.mozilla.org
        0.0.0.0 fhr.cdn.mozilla.net
        0.0.0.0 getpocket.cdn.mozilla.net
        0.0.0.0 incoming.telemetry.mozilla.org
        0.0.0.0 input.mozilla.org
        0.0.0.0 install.mozilla.org
        0.0.0.0 onyx_tiles.stage.mozaws.net
        0.0.0.0 qsurvey.mozilla.com
        0.0.0.0 search.services.mozilla.com
        0.0.0.0 self-repair.mozilla.org
        0.0.0.0 telemetry.mozilla.org
        0.0.0.0 telemetry-experiment.cdn.mozilla.net
        0.0.0.0 tiles.services.mozilla.com
        0.0.0.0 token.services.mozilla.com
        0.0.0.0 versioncheck.addons.mozilla.org

        Wow, that’s literally worse than all Brave has done so far. Firefox, the wannabe privacy-first browser, should be silent like a grave, much like Ungoogled Chromium, an actual privacy-first browser. It should contact an update server to ensure automatic updates, maybe, but nothing more. Instead the above happens. LOL. Especially that experiments domain is highly interesting, after all, isn’t Firefox able to silently execute highly privileged code without the user noticing (FF Experiments)? But yeah, keep on talking about Brave, insinuating that it does something bad when it really doesn’t, while totally ignoring the unsolicited requests of Firefox, the project you so ardently support.

      3. Pants said on June 7, 2020 at 12:45 pm

        Why are you mad at me? I didn’t do anything. You should be mad at Brave. Nothing I asked is incorrect. It is all 100% true.

        All you had to do was be civil and answer “yes, and btw, there was no privacy issue here” – but instead you name call (Martin must be sick and tired of editing you: if it was me you’d be banned by now), go off on tangents and use whataboutisms and other fallacies. You’re clearly upset and feel threatened for some reason

        Can you not answer a simple question? Are you incapable of a sane, rational, relevant, on-topic, and civil adult conversation?

        I’ll ask again: Is that the Brave update that finally fixes the at least 3+ month old bug where thousands of unsolicited connections per day to 3rd parties were being made?

        For those reading: Brave sent thousands of requests a day to 3rd parties when users were opted out of Brave Rewards (which is default opt out) and the Crypto Wallet. I do not know how long the bug has been there – maybe it’s been present for years. The Brave devs on multiple reddit threads said, yes this is a bug and did nothing. Over a month later a non-Brave person had to open an issue on github for them to address it. Nothing happened. Finally, over 3 months later, after more users had complained and one had even name-checked the CEO (who didn’t reply), a patch was made. I have no idea if the patch itself has been properly tested. Over the entire period, Brave didn’t make any apologies or announcements (not that they have to: but from an optics perspective, it doesn’t look very good. Any PR person can see that. You would think they would be more transparent and also more urgent about it)

        I did not bring up all of that: I only asked if this was the Brave update that finally fixed it. I did not accuse Brave of doing it deliberately, I did not say it containing PII, I didn’t say the use case wasn’t for valid reasons. What I did ask, is 100% factually correct.

        > we have discussed that a thousand times already

        We discussed it once. If anyone want to dive down the hypocrisy rabbit hole have at it
        https://www.ghacks.net/2020/05/25/ebay-is-port-scanning-your-system-when-you-load-the-webpage/#comments

        PS: speaking of “bugs”: here’s another “oophsie” from Brave, from today: hard-coded affiliate referal linking
        https://old.reddit.com/r/privacytoolsIO/comments/gxuv5d/brave_browser_found_hardcoding_referral_links_to/

      4. Iron Heart said on June 7, 2020 at 4:49 pm

        @Pants

        > Why are you mad at me? I didn’t do anything.

        You bring up the very same topic we have discussed ad nauseam already, a topic of which you believe that it will shed a bad light on Brave (the only reason why you bring it up)…. Needless to say, you have to make a mountain out of a molehill to achieve the intended result, and of course want to provoke my humble personage by asking the same question over and over again, trying to smear Brave and its users. It gets old.

        > All you had to do was be civil and answer “yes, and btw, there was no privacy issue here” – but instead you name call

        I have replied to you already, and ad nauseam. Bringing this up again, without even knowing your own facts by now (as you should), in spite of me having explained it already, is just provocative and nothing else. Also, you have no business in how I phrase my replies. I don’t intervene in how you phrase yours, either.

        > (Martin must be sick and tired of editing you: if it was me you’d be banned by now)

        Luckily you are not in charge here. This might be hard for you to grasp, but Martin seems to be impartial for the most part. Your burning wish for him to ban me doesn’t seem to pay off so far, must be frustrating. He also has good (and IMHO better) reasons to ban you, Pants, but that’s another matter entirely.

        > go off on tangents and use whataboutisms and other fallacies. You’re clearly upset and feel threatened for some reason

        *Yawn* If “threatened” means the same as “rolling my eyes so hard that they almost fall out”, then maybe I feel threatened. Otherwise not so much.

        > Can you not answer a simple question? Are you incapable of a sane, rational, relevant, on-topic, and civil adult conversation?

        I can, if the question hasn’t been discussed with you already and if it is not merely meant to provoke. But you fail to ask any such questions… I wonder why…

        > I’ll ask again: Is that the Brave update that finally fixes the at least 3+ month old bug where thousands of unsolicited connections per day to 3rd parties were being made?

        The way you phrase it is incorrect, in this sense: “No.” If you remove the “unsolicited” from your question: “Yes.”

        The connections were neither unsolicited (they were necessary to drive a built-in feature of the browser), nor was any PII sent. In that sense, even if the bug would remain unfixed forever, it wouldn’t be a privacy threat. The fix is merely cosmetic, to avoid wrong impressions and not to fall prey to dishonest people who might turn this into a pseudo-reason not to use Brave.

        And once again, whether there are “thousands of connections” or just “one connection” is totally irrelevant, as long as the same domain is hit anyway. With your freely made up numbers, you of course try to bamboozle the non-techies, this is highly dishonest. The content of information transmitted is unrelated to the repeatedness of the transmission.

        > For those reading: blah blah

        You are describing an ordinary bug that was admittedly not handled optimally, a bug that was never a privacy threat to begin with, and was thus given low priority. Cool story, happens in all projects.

        > I have no idea if the patch itself has been properly tested.

        [Editor: removed the unsubstantiated claim]

        > Over the entire period, Brave didn’t make any apologies or announcements (not that they have to: but from an optics perspective, it doesn’t look very good. Any PR person can see that. You would think they would be more transparent and also more urgent about it)

        No PII was ever sent, why apologize? It was just an ordinary bug, going by that logic, they would have to apologize for any and all bugs.

        I mean, you are seriously complaining about Brave fetching the BAT exchange rate multiple times per day, I mean… If you have to turn to things like this in order to artificially create a problem where there hasn’t been one before, then Brave seems to be the browser that can be recommended without a second thought.

        > I did not bring up all of that: I only asked if this was the Brave update that finally fixed it. I did not accuse Brave of doing it deliberately, I did not say it containing PII, I didn’t say the use case wasn’t for valid reasons. What I did ask, is 100% factually correct.

        Yeah, play innocent… You deliberately try to make it seem like it is a privacy issue, quote “thousands of unsolicited connections per day to 3rd parties”, this is highly dishonest. No PII was ever sent, making it appear this way is malicious smearing of Brave, even if phrased as a pseudo-question that has already been answered. You already know that it is not a privacy issue from our prior discussion, don’t attempt to make it seem that way, I don’t care if this accusation and / or smearing is phrased as a pseudo-question, so that you can complain about my reply again, saying that I supposedly feel “threatened” for whatever reason (LOL).

        > We discussed it once.

        Yes, and ad nauseam. You already have my reply to this very question (I already told you that 1.10 would fix the very bug that you always misrepresent), you can stop the smearing-phrased-as-innocent-question now.

        > If anyone want to dive down the hypocrisy rabbit hole have at it

        Yeah, your hypocrisy was really hard to miss.

        > PS: speaking of “bugs”: here’s another “oophsie” from Brave, from today: hard-coded affiliate referal linking

        You mean the referal link people triggered when they clicked the Binance logo on the New Tab Page, which was clearly marked as an “advertisement” in the first place? That referal link? Imagine my shock, people clicking on ads that are clearly marked as such. If you never clicked on that ad which was clearly marked as such, you wouldn’t have triggered the referal link.

        The people complaining here are those out to complain.

        And once again, that’s still not on the level of the things Mozilla has done and still does (spying via preinstalled cookies on FF for Android, sending the entire browsing history back to the mothership etc.). These were all far bigger “oopsies”, but then again, you ignore them (hypocrisy).

        I am not going to reply to your inevitable reply, I am tired of people who artificially turn a non-issue into a pseudo-issue, in order to smear a project they don’t like. You literally bring up a bug that had no privacy implications at all to begin with, expect me to explain it to you more than once, expect the Brave devs to apologize (For what exactly, if no user data was ever at stake?) etc. I’m sick and tired of it. Anyone who has read your posts regarding Brave knows of your malintent regarding the project, born out of a misunderstood loyalty to Mozilla.

      5. Pants said on June 7, 2020 at 6:49 pm

        > unsolicited
        https://www.dictionary.com/browse/unsolicited

        “given or supplied without being requested or asked for”

        The term is correctly used. Users were default opt-out of Brave Rewards and were still given/supplied data without it being asked for [explicitly asked for: the end user did not expect it, did not ask for it. of course the code did, that’s the bug]

        > I have replied to you already

        Not in this article, which is about Firefox. I asked a simple question for the benefit of readers where you are talking about Brave (again, in a Firefox article).

        all the rest isn’t even worth reading, let alone replying to

        Look, I’m not sure you get this, so here goes

        I do not care about comparing browsers (that’s something **you** do). I do not care about issues like the bug already mentioned, or the issue of the affiliate links or dozens, hundreds of other things. Where I have, it is only with you in order to show your hypocrisy etc

        I do care that things are scrutinized and in context, and especially when something can be learnt on how to better privacy etc (for everyone). I only deal in facts, I’m impartial, and pragmatic. My record speaks for itself. I do not come in **here** and promote Firefox, or denigrate Brave or any other browser. I’ve never waded into the BAT argument, or anything. Go back and look at all my comments outside those with you, and you’ll be very hard pressed to find anything. Even those with you, I haven’t actually denigrated Brave at all: I’ve just pointed something out and asked your opinion.

        You’re just making up accusations in your lashing out: just like you suddenly started bashing the ghacks user.js after [1] – whereas in that same article comments you were using it as a source and linking to it prior to get upset

        I’m not posting about Brave (that’s incidental), I’m actually calling out your behavior. You see, what I do care about, is etiquette and quality. Do you understand now?

        I said in [1] below that it’s trivial to push your buttons, in order to nudge Martin’s hand. What I’m doing, is highlighting your hypocrisy, illogical thinking, incivility and fallacy-laden excuses. But I’m not doing it by making outlandish statements – it’s all you and how you reply. It’s like a red rag to a bull. You just can’t help yourself. Every single time you fall for it, and every single time you reinforce what I say, and showcase your pre-judgement and bias etc. Everyone can see it

        For years you terrorized and polluted the comments section on Firefox articles. Repeatedly brought up the same issues or points, ad nauseum, shilled Brave and more. You abused people and personally attacked them. And since you were warned [1], you have toned it down.

        … but you’re **STILL** doing it. Adding flippant remarks to denigrate Firefox to make Brave look better, and polluting comments with nonsense, etc. And just plain causing arguments and being rude. And most times you do that, I’m going to show you a red rag

        … you see, I’m subtlety using your own techniques against you: “you have to make a mountain out of a molehill” – yup, this shows off your hypocrisy: because you make mountains out of nothing. So you do it, it’s OK. I do it and it’s obnoxious. But I’ll actually go further: I didn’t make them mountains, **you** did by making false assumptions and starting to rant.

        Do you understand yet? As long as you (or **ANYONE** else) post BS (including shilling), I’m going to call it out

        [1] https://www.ghacks.net/2020/04/17/mozilla-adds-dynamic-first-party-isolation-option-to-firefox-77/#comments

        PS: every time you bash the ghacks user.js, I’m going to not only debunk your BS, but I’m also going to link to it so all the readers can judge for themselves: so thanks for the free promos

        Thanks for playing :)

      6. Iron Heart said on June 7, 2020 at 8:32 am

        @Pants

        Oh and what about Firefox Preview, this browser literally comes with three hard-coded trackers (Adjust, Leanplum, Google Analytics) installed, which Mozilla admitted are used for marketing purposes? How about that? I hear little from you about this, I wonder why…

      7. Then said on June 7, 2020 at 3:56 pm

        @Pants, @Iron
        Seriously both brave and firefox have serious problems, and issues with trustworthiness. Deep down I bet most of us want it all fixed. Becoming more polarised and defensive just allows them both to keep screwing us over. Im sure theres some kind of social science at play somewhere here that works in their favour.

      8. Iron Heart said on June 7, 2020 at 8:21 pm

        @Then

        I agree with you that all persons involved (myself included) should try to keep an open mind and not fall into into bias and into wearing rose-colored glasses.

        I can’t speak for Pants as I am not her, but as for myself, I am absolutely willing to discuss privacy issues of Brave, if they are somewhat substantiated and not made out of hot air.

        The key to have a good discussion with me is to make a substantiated(!) argument. What happened here was sadly the contrary.

        What happened on Brave’s part? Brave comes with an internal extension called “Brave Rewards” which they inserted into the Chromium codebase. By allowing privacy-respecting ads, you can ad a certain amount of BAT per month. BAT is a cryptocurrency with fluctuating value. Brave Rewards displays a widget on Brave’s New Tab Page informing the user about his or her current BAT count, as well as the exchange rate BAT – USD.

        Pants complains about Brave fetching the exchange rate BAT – USD a few hundred times per day, in order to keep the widget current, even when the user has Brave Rewards disabled. While this shouldn’t be happening when Brave Rewards are disabled, no personal information of the user is ever sent to any outside server in the process. It literally just pulls down the exchange rate data on a regular basis, to keep it current. That is what Pants calls “thousands of unsolicited connections per day to 3rd parties”.

        Let’s examine this statement alone:

        > thousands

        Irrelevant, as it’s always the very same domain that is being hit. Whether Brave fetches the exchange rates once per day or a few hundred times per day says nothing about the “issue” at hand. Only the type of data is important, and in this particular case, Brave downloads the exchange rate data, while not uploading any PII.

        > of unsolicited connections

        While it shouldn’t be happening while Brave Rewards are turned off, there is (again) no indication that any kind of private data is being leaked here. The Brave team is fixing the issue, because Brave establishing a connection like that always riggers the alu hats, even if no PII is being leaked at all. “Unsolicited” is correct here if loosely defined, in that it shouldn’t be happening when the related browser feature is turned off – however, it’s also not a connection the browser establishes just for fun or out of malintent – the datasets are required to drive the related widget on the New Tab Page.

        > to 3rd parties

        This just means that Brave Software doesn’t compile the exchange rate data itself, but delegates this to another database, from which Brave fetches the exchange rate data in the end. The “1st party” vs. “3rd party” distinction is also nonsensical, because even if private data would hypothetically, in another scenario, be transmitted to a first party – the browser vendor itself – you could never know whether or not said “first party” is handing over the datasets in question to a “third party” anyway.

        Pants literally complains about the browser displaying an exchange rate to users, for which it has to fetch related datasets from a database on a regular basis. Is that a privacy issue, was any kind of user data transmitted? Nope. But Pants makes it seem that way deliberately, and I am not willing to enter into discussions that were rigged to begin with. Again, if there is an actual privacy issue of Brave to discuss, then I am more than willing to discuss it with all seriousness required.

        But I will no longer give fairly primitive FUD like “Whooaaa, the browser hits a 3rd party server multiple times – must be a privacy issue then!” any kind of platform, when all that the browser really does is keeping its BAT – USD exchange rate current. Based on Pants’ deliberate misrepresentations of what is really happening, in spite of me having explained it to her before no less, no kind of serious discussion can possibly take place.

        I hope I made my point clear, again, I appreciate your call for all of use to be openminded.

  7. Kincaid said on June 6, 2020 at 1:09 am

    Think is a UI and UX error by Mozilla.

    I frequently use both of those menu items, and now it’s going to take an additional step to access them. Plus, it’s going to make using keyboard shortcuts to access significantly more difficult.

    Furthermore, I use userChrome.css to customize the order of menu items in Firefox (which is an incredible and unique feature to Firefox), and when a menu item is in a child menu, you can’t use CSS to move it into the parent menu. Please correct me if I’m mistaken.

  8. mozilla pisses me off sometimes said on June 6, 2020 at 6:49 am

    HELP! Can anyone help me? With the current (new) version of Firefox, the stupid address bar is enlarged again, even after I had applied the fixes posted here at ghacks a week or so ago for an older version of Firefox.

    IMO, Why do they have such a hard-on for the address bar to jump out at you?

  9. Flotsam said on June 6, 2020 at 7:05 am

    I’m all for making context menus less prone to mis-clicks. The worst example I can think of is qBittorrent*. The context menu has an item “Force Reannounce” that’s situated between “Force Recheck” and “Open Destination Folder”. If you miss by a couple of pixels and click “Force Recheck” you invoke an unstoppable process that can take a very long time to complete. If you hit “Open Destination Folder” you can open multiple instances of your file manager, one for every torrent in your list. In my case that’s over 1000 tabs opened in Dolphin.

    Given the lost hours of my examples vs the lost milliseconds with a submenu I’d say the benefit is self-evident.

    *I use qBittorrent daily so this isn’t about the app in general.

  10. Anonymous said on June 6, 2020 at 3:18 pm

    I approve of this change. Twice i have accidentally clicked “close other tabs” instead of “undo close tab”. I lost dozens of tabs that i couldn’t figure out what they were because they were opened for weeks.