At least in the last version, clearing your private data (ctrl-shift-delete) no longer deleted Google cookies. To completely log out required manually digging into the advanced settings and then rebooting the browser.

Google fundamentally doesn't respect user privacy, and people should use Firefox.

Once I saw that my account was linked to Chrome/Chromium without my permission, I cleared everything out of Chrome and stopped using it as a secondary browser. My secondary browser is now a separate Firefox profile:

    alias ff='firefox -ProfileManager -no-remote &'

It's a huge advantage to be able to pause a script in Chrome, edit the source code, and have those changes injected back into the script. Chrome will even rewind the stack if I edit a line behind where the script currently is.

I use Firefox for all of my personal browsing and for some of my development. But I really miss that feature.

Edit: that and making it easier to debug Node from Firefox. It's still kind of a pain in that area.

[1] https://nodejs.org/api/repl.html

[2] https://nodejs.org/api/debugger.html

[3] https://github.com/epeli/slimux

[4] https://medium.com/actualize-network/a-minimalist-guide-to-t...

Also, Firefox tabs are as ugly as ever (lots of thick lines), and the search bar drop down is cluttered as hell. I thought I’d hate the Chrome 69 tab style, but I got over it in a couple of hours; whereas for Firefox I simply can’t.

[1] https://www.google.com/search?q=hosts+blocklists

[2] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/umatrix/

[3] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/ublock-origin...

I really wanted Firefox to be a replacement for Chrome but it’s so much more sluggish that it’s not even a comparison.

In general I find the UI for manipulating CSS and the DOM easier in Firefox. The Javascript Debugger in Chrome tends to work a little better when jumping in and out of 3rd party libraries, Firefox will just give up trying to break in your code and just dump errors in the console.

Meh... as long as it's not Safari Dev Tools I'm happy.

Thanks!

Not sure if this holds in Linux or Windows.

EDIT: In fact I just noticed that Chrome was outdated. After upgrading it to the latest build, it uses more screen real estate for the UI than FF Quantum's latest build. The difference is even more pronounced if you have bookbar bars turned on.

It's not as pretty or intuitive as Chrome's “shift-click and drag” approach, but it works well enough.

Debugging in Firefox works great!

https://www.jetbrains.com/help/webstorm/debugging-javascript...

Of course now it just seems obvious and I cannot understand what I did earlier.

"Brave Core will arrive in beta form in late September and in major release form most of the way through October" https://www.cnet.com/news/brave-ad-blocking-browser-gets-chr...

to your system. https://www.chromium.org/administrators All solved. It survives updates/reinstalls.

In my main Firefox profile, I use umatrix[1] to browse the WWW with all CSS and JS turned off by default, enabling them only when needed. Reader mode makes most articles readable with a single click.

Firefox's built-in privacy protection is also enabled.

If a website doesn't work with my settings, it takes about the same time to override the CSS/JS settings than the difference between an unblocked page load and a blocked page load. Pages load much faster in general, so it's a net gain in free time.

I also use Stylus[2] to turn off all CSS animation and add custom styling to websites.

[1] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/umatrix/

[2] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/styl-us/

I'n curious why you disable CSS, obviously I understand why you would want to turn of JS. Is this part of the override for Stylus to work? It didn't look like it from the link.

Some reasons:

- Ctrl-clicking to open tabs since I can then load them in the background (because I'm impatient, and because I don't want to get distracted by clicking into all the references in the main tab while reading.

- using tab tree extension I can then easily see what path lead to some interesting page I found

- by default, if you type ab address you already have open in another tab, Firefox will jump to that tab.

> Is this really a common way to use a browser?

Yep. Bot extremely common but I do it and a number of other HN-ers as well. Mozilla seems to be aware of it and seems to have it in their performance tests or something.

This has been true for a many years now but I still see tech people ignoring it completely.

I no longer believe tech people are very intelligent. They are easily lured into whatever good looking tech comes along and will sacrifice their privacy at the drop of a hat.

This is true regardless of the discipline. You can meet astoundingly stupid heart surgeons, astrophysics PhDs, etc.

That said - he was good looking, had a reasonably good sense of humor and knew where the good parties were - so he could be forgiven this small vanity.

>This is an intended behaviour if you are using the same Google Account for your Gmail and Chrome. If yes, you'll be signed out of Chrome when you signed out of Gmail account.

...

Good news is that it is possible currently to disable the feature. Doing to breaks the link between the Google Account in Chrome that is used to sync data and Google accounts on Internet sites.

Note: Google may remove experimental flags like the one described below at any time. As long as it turns up when you run the steps below it is supported.

Here is what you need to do:

1. Load chrome://flags/#account-consistency in the browser's address bar. Google Chrome should display the flag Identity consistency between browser and cookie jar at the top.

2. Set the flag to disabled with a click on the menu and selecting disabled from the context menu.

3. Restart the Chrome browser.

Chrome breaks the link between the Google account in Chrome used to sync data and Google accounts that you sign in using the browser on Google sites."

https://www.ghacks.net/2018/09/08/disable-the-sign-out-link-...

Ta-da, no more spyware.

You could point out reasons why this isn't the same thing, but you'd be missing the point. I, as an individual, can't fully assess the privacy impact of every single piece of technology I use, and what seems to be a benign feature backed by a corporation I trust could be anything but.

That being the case, we need to adopt certain heuristics to help defend our privacy. Granting as few permissions as possible for applications we use, and avoiding using a single identity across all of our devices is a good way to mitigate that risk.

Are you an individual that is willing to reduce your privacy a bit for added convenience? That's perfectly fine. But the ethical thing for Google to do would be to make this an opt-in feature, rather than an opt-out. The fact that they made this browser/Google Account sync the default was no accident. They want to gather more data on their users, and know if their users were stopped and prompted to think about whether or not they actually wanted this convenience, they would have less participating users. So they've made the unethical choice, and made this an opt-out feature.

Personally having my entire browsing history linked to my name and sent off to a company for analysis and profit is a concern, and this is a deal breaker for me. As such I will no longer be using Chrome as my default browser.

Specially when it's Google. They are super creepy and facilitators of a future where users have zero privacy but don't have the intelligence to care about it.

To me it's obvious, to others it's not. Just look at Google usage. They are absolutely creepy.

2. Google can say >99% of users "prefer" the new setting.

3. Tighten the lock-in.

Historically, the great Google products are made from scratch (or bought early) and stand by themselves. Their not-so-good products or features are the result of some elaborate corporate thinking that comes out under phrases like "Identity consistency between browser and cookie jar".

So, while they (may) think it tightens the lock-in, it (may) actually end up doing the opposite and be a disservice to everyone.

Gmail and Calendar already share the same login. Is that hurting anyone?

Even ignoring the (many) privacy implications, this causes problems for syncing across devices. Lets say I share a computer with my partner, but we have separate phones. Should I need to check which Gmail account is logged in before bookmarking something? Why can't we share a Chrome profile across those 3 devices while still maintaining separate Gmail accounts?

Why would they use the same browser logon. Sure they might use the same be, sure, they might even not use a different user account on the computer, but your are suggesting that they would use the same Google account to log into the browser yet different Google Accounts to log into Google.

That seems improbable, and likely to have unintended privacy implication that account consistency would mitigate rather than exacerbate.

The privacy implications here are in regards to stuff like Google stripping search terms off of urls from competing services. Caring about that doesn't mean you will necessarily care about hiding search history from your partner. Even with syncing passwords -- both of my parents know how to log into each other's Gmail accounts. Anecdotally, that is relatively common for older generations; sometimes they'll even ask each other to check their email if a computer isn't nearby.

If you have sync turned on in that scenario, you are going to end up with bookmarks and passwords that randomly disappear depending on who was logged into what when they were added.

And sure, you can get around that by just not using sync. The privacy implications are still worse in that situation, because you no longer have a choice not to log into Chrome. But even if you don't care about that, it still seems like a strict downgrade in functionality. You lose the ability to sync bookmarks between computers and you lose the ability to easily share logins.

The response to, "hey, you made this feature less useful!" probably shouldn't be, "well, but you won't notice if you just stop using it." It's hard to make that sound like an upgrade.

Suppose I and my partner want to be able to bookmark something and have it show up on both of our phones. Is there a way to do that without sharing a Gmail account? That seems like a pretty common use case to me that was pretty easy to do before Chrome tied them together.

On Firefox, that use case would be trivial. You just sign all your browsers into one account and then use the web normally like you've always done.

No, my suggestion was to create separate user accounts on the shared computer for each person--i.e., each person logs in to the computer with their own user account. That would make all of the website logins separate for each user, without anyone having to switch profiles in their browser.

However, I apparently misunderstood your problem; you don't want everything separate, you just want gmail separate while still sharing Chrome profiles. You're right that my suggestion won't solve that problem.

It's actually hurting me: I'd like to be able to sign into YouTube on an untrusted device without signing into Gmail at the same time.

While I'm not signed into the browser, it has lifted my Google Account profile image into the browser, so it's still doing some sort of "consistency". It's clear the browser still knows my Google Account.

Image: https://imgur.com/hrEwPqX.png (Note, I confirmed that the about:flag "Identity consistency..." is set to Disabled before/after this screenshot again.)

I continue to be thrilled that I moved back to Firefox around Quantum.

I have a personal Gmail account, and a business G Suite account, and this change makes working with the two accounts a complete pain. All my years of Chrome bookmarks/settings/etc. are associated with my personal account, so I want the browser itself to always be logged in with that identity. But I want to be logged into my business G Suite email account "by default" when I hit gmail.com, when I open Google Analytics, Drive etc. so I don't have to use the account picker a hundred times a day. It just doesn't seem possible. Argh.

I wonder if Google employee accounts were to be considered business G Suite-like instead of consumer Gmail like, all these kinds of problems that constantly keep popping up for G Suite customers wouldn't be fixed overnight.

https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/2364824

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/example@gmail.com

This also seems to work with non-Gmail URLs, where the "authuser" parameter is used (e.g. Google Analytics).

Note: for actually checking my email, I have ended up using mailspring.

I'm not sure if this makes much of a difference to your case. I imagine most employees are using different profiles for work and personal. I always did this.. it makes for a nice firewall as well between accounts (never need to worry about awkward history when I present to co-workers).

Unlike Firefox (major pain point btw), you can run Chrome with multiple profiles at once, each in a separate window.

However, since the profile code is so old, it is not accessible from the main interface; it must be accessed via a command line flag. Chrome learned from this mistake and exposed it in the graphical interface.

It is utterly false however to say that Firefox does not support profiles.

Granted the UI could use some work, but if you make a shortcut that brings up the profile selector it works pretty OK.

That's a good suggestion, but I just don't need or want to maintain two sets of bookmarks, install each plugin twice, configure each setting in two places, etc. But I guess I'll have to... sigh.

I like my job.

How am I supposed to pass, again?

It's perfectly possibly to use gmail-the-service without using gmail-the-app.

My standing solution is to use one browser to log into big-G services, another to log into FB, and a third for everything else.

Check out Firefox container tabs.[1] You can isolate sites within one browser and save the associations between containers and tabs.

I use container tabs along with multiple Firefox profiles (for different combinations of browser extensions).

[1] https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/containers

Again, that's perfectly alright! Just remember that if you reach the point that you can't stand it anymore, you do have other options available to you.

Until that's fixed, I can't use it as my primary browser. This saddens me, because I otherwise love it.

EDIT: This is actually more reason for me to switch back to Linux; FF doesn't have this bug there.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17934764

Thanks!

There are a few others to try. I used Airmail a few years ago. However, be on the lookout for "native" email clients that are really just web gmail wrappers.

I think I'll go back but I'm not sure.

I've also used Airmail on and off for years and quite like it, on both Mac and iOS. Mail.app isn't bad, but I've used labels heavily for years, including multiple labels on emails, and Mail doesn't seem to handle that scenario very well.

Using gmail doesn't automatically make them a bad employer. That is incredibly shallow and naive.

This mentality does nothing to help "software ethics" since it forces people to make an extremely unrealistic choice. I wouldn't expect anybody to quit their job over their employer using gmail. You're just pitting more people against the idea of standing up for software ethics by making it about extremes.

It is akin to telling someone, after an oil spill, that they don't care about the planet since they didn't immediately sell their car to quit buying gas.

I'm glad for you that you've found such a clear moral compass, but the world is, in my experience, rather subtle and complex.

The gmail address listed on my HN profile is for listing on public profiles.

next up: push for new standards that favor chrome over other browsers.

This one aims to automatically close all such popups. It doesn't "deny" permissions, but that's what content blockers such as uMatrix are for.

https://blog.mozilla.org/firefox/facebook-container-extensio...

The non-profit I volunteer with organizes everything over FB. The union I work under announces almost everything over FB. I literally never look at my FB "feed" but I've got 5 private groups that I check every day. If I stopped using FB, I'd be completely out of the loop with almost everything I do.

I suspect that's how a lot of the world operates. FB is free and easy and reliable and everybody already has an account. It lets people post text and photos and comments, and tag other people, and report when they've seen something. That's everything we used to use email for (and a bit more), but more convenient.

I got my first cell phone a couple months ago. It's a lot easier for me to live without a cell phone than to live without FB. No cell phone means I have to wait a couple hours to read my messages. No FB would mean I wouldn't get organization news at all.

Even for people who hate FB on principle, they've never suggested an alternative that meets our needs better today. Possibly Google's services could, but a significant number of people I know don't have Google accounts (or use Gmail), and the people who hate FB usually hate Google just as much. Possibly Yammer, but ditto everything (and Microsoft).

Decentralized social networks are a cool idea, but until FB starts breaking so bad that we're unable to communicate about our upcoming project, we have no reason to consider switching to anything else.

I'm not saying that you're entirely wrong, because I've used that rationalization for keeping Facebook in the past.

What I do instead is just maintain an address book of everyone I know and send them an update on my life every once in a great while. It's much more fulfilling.

I'm already the black sheep of my family, I'm not going to make it worse because strangers on the internet told me to.

(I do take some precautions, like only using Facebook in a private window, and certainly never on my phone.)

I'll turn that hypothetical question you posed around and ask how saying that email isn't sufficient for keeping in touch is any different from saying "Who needs greeting cards? Just let Facebook tell you to post on someone's timeline when it's a birthday or holiday."

I'm not denying that Facebook has some utility, but it's changed our definition of keeping in touch to value mass quantity over quality. If one values quality communication, Facebook is completely unnecessary and can be replaced with email which is an existing, standardized, ubiquitous, and sufficient means of keeping in contact with people. Your family would be statistical outliers if almost all of them didn't have an email you could send to.

In conjunction with "your life depends on facebook?", I'm simply saying that while one can use Facebook, there is such a thing as a viable alternative with its own advantages. It's controversial, I know.

I'm surprised anyone privacy minded still gets concerned about Google as they've been pretty open about everything since the launch of gmail. They give you free stuff in exchange for ads.

Chrome must send data, even if you aren't signed in. Google has a shadow profile for you anyway, so if you use chrome, you're logging to google.

They're open about the fact that they use your data but not as to how they use it. Even if they were, they have a high motivation to abuse it further and further since that is their business model.

Besides, I don't see how being open about invading your privacy makes it not invading your privacy.

Sub out Google/gmail with Facebook and see how that reads.

.tar archives are often referenced as tarballs[1].

[0]https://vivaldi.com/source/

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tar_(computing)

It even has the flag for this account-consistency feature. Who knows if it will be enabled - would you even notice if it was?

I'm using it but am fairly ambivalent.

Q: Other browser companies tell us that too many options and features confuse users, and they remove or limit functionality based on that claim. Is that true in your opinion?

A: No. [...]

https://www.ghacks.net/2018/07/25/an-interview-with-vivaldis...

I use this feature heavily to separate different clients.

It's also the reason why Chrome/Chromium are now out of the question for personal use: Much to complicated to keep things separated.

    FIREFOX_PROFILE_DIR=~/.profile1 firefox

    FIREFOX_PROFILE_DIR=~/.profile2 firefox

  firefox --no-remote -ProfileManager

I do wish -ProfileManager implied --no-remote though -- I wonder whether there's a reason it doesn't?.

EDIT: I just found `firefox -P` elsewhere in the thread. Also it seems like -ProfileManager does imply --no-remote now. Yay!

[0]: Or a shell script in my case, but a shortcut is probably more "accessible".

    firefox --no-remote --profile /path/to/profile/directory

Switching to Chromium.

https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=786909

https://lwn.net/Articles/648392/

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9724409

Though "Chrome integration" with Google is pointless at best and an awful user experience.

I made the mistake of logging in w/ Google on Chrome mobile. Resulting in all my bookmarks being synced on the phone (because of course I want my desktop bookmarks on my phone. Obviously. Thanks Google). This is a mistake I'm not doing again.

I use an email app (just regular Mail on the mac) to access my Gmail. Your email is stored and synced locally so it is accessible offline, and you don't get these shenanigans. Also I use Firefox.

But let's be honest, even if you aren't logged in, and aren't using Chrome, at this point if Google is not recognizing you it is only because they are pretending not to. I'd bet they have a pretty good record of my internet activity.

Firefox it is then. This is a little too shady for my liking.

A+++ would recommend.

It did seem strange to me but I didn't bother because I was busy with the search. Now after reading this post this certainly does not seem strange anymore.

Edit: Like OP, I never logged in to Chrome, only on gmail.com.

The Chrome Dev team is off the rails.

This is just one of the many changes that explicitly show that google wants all data aggregated.

You might get by for now by thus technique or that, but eventually Google will close those holes.

Also I'm in process to ditch Google contacts on Android (actually sync-ed one-way via Goobook/XML files since vdirsyncer seems unable to sync many contacts) switching to Radicale on home server and DAVDroid on mobile.

For years I say to many ditching GMail&Google in general: you drop a working solution for another equally held by another company with a mission of making money. Now I have to say they were wright, I still drop a company for another but some others are less parasite than Google.

Sorry for my poor English, not my mother-tongue...

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

(Hanlon's razor)

The real question is how Hanlon's Razor applies to itself.

I've switched over to Firefox and it's quite fast and nice these days.

People like you really rise my blood pressure. No, it's not important to him/her, bad defaults[1] are important for everyone because they are incorrect design. The correct design is not to synchronize anything before obtaining informed consent.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_pattern

I completely agree about the dark pattern and I think that's a really good point that I didn't consider at all in what I said.

However, my argument regarding Chrome is that Google carries out tracking so pervasive that it basically doesn't matter any more if they throw a dark pattern like this in the mix. I am still trying to come to terms with how banal this evil has become.

May I suggest that this is a very ugly, condescending, dismissive way of talking to anyone. The phrase has no place on a forum like HN.

Perhaps your suggestion could be valid.

Since you pointed that out, what set me off primarily is similar sentiment when parent hinted that op might be arguing in bad faith with "so it comes off as a bit of a complaint for the sake of it". General dismissive attitude of HN to anything privacy related (like this thread getting downvoted) only exacerbates things further.