The more you add, the more unique your browser is to fingerprinting and such. Probably a bit overkill. I use the multi-account containers to keep "what if" browsing away from ruining recommendations on the same site while staying logged in. Ublock origin is for the actual privacy benefits.
this post was submitted on 17 Jun 2026
9 points (100.0% liked)
Firefox
22861 readers
3 users here now
/c/firefox
A place to discuss the news and latest developments on the open-source browser Firefox.
Rules
1. Adhere to the instance rules
2. Be kind to one another
3. Communicate in a civil manner
Reporting
If you would like to bring an issue to the moderators attention, please use the "Create Report" feature on the offending comment or post and it will be reviewed as time allows.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
Well yes, but I am trying to figure out if Strict Protection and different containers overlap in what they do. If yes, I don't see why FF maintains and promotes all of them. Facebook Container seems like a single-case Multi-account Container, and Strict Protection seems to block cross-site cookies anyway.
On fingerprinting, perhaps switching languages, addons etc on/off would confuse trackers. FF could even do that automatically.
i use temporary containers so even the same site has isolated cookies for different tabs, i'd say strict tracking protection and multi acc containers are completely different.
you can also assign (socks5/http) proxies to different containers, very useful imo
I had missed the proxies and it looks great. It would work well with FoxyProxy in my current setup. But I can't get it to work with my network socks5 proxy. I enter something like http://ip:port (which works well with FoxyProxy) but I get 'The proxy server is refusing connections'. Does the URL pattern look correct?
"Facebook Container" seems redundant if you already use Multi-Account Containers and set it up accordingly, yes. Other than that it doesn't sound over-the top at all and a reasonable configuration.
Doesn’t Strict mode block third-party cookies anyway?
Almost, but not entirely. For that you need First-party Isolation (privacy.firstparty.isolate pref: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1330467),
containerises first-party cookies too, but I wouldn’t need that.
It does do that - if it didn't, there wouldn't be any "multi-account" to it.
With a profile like that you might also find Konform Browser relevant to your interests with more private defaults and convenient toggling of modes and features. https://konform-browser.codeberg.page/
It comes with a debloated version of Multi-Account Containers, which can also be installed as a normal addon into other Firefox builds: https://codeberg.org/konsortium/multi-account-containers-lite
Unless I misunderstand this, the problem with Multi-Account Containers is that sites sharing the same container can read each other's cookies probably because MAC is actually designed for multi-account scenarios rather than to isolate each site. I wish there was a way to containerise each site by default without breaking the web.
Konform Browser
Looks good but I would miss new Firefox features and the stricter the restrictions the more friction. I used NoScript for a while in the past and it was a nightmare.
I use containers as tab groups you can hide and show
Isn't that what MAC + Simple Tab Groups do? Isn't it still the case that if we have, say, 10 tabs in the same container they can read each other's cookies and possibly other data? If that's true, it seems one way to stop this is to create a separate container for each site. That would be very impractical unless the browser does it for us.