The issue about that extension is how it handles consent.
In most cases, the add-on just blocks or hides cookie related pop-ups. When it's needed for the website to work properly, it will automatically accept the cookie policy for you (sometimes it will accept all and sometimes only necessary cookie categories, depending on what's easier to do
You should be aware that it will often just accept all cookies, because that is easier.
Gdpr seemed like it was designed to ban this, but lately companies (especially German ones?) seem to be trying this. I guess it won't be resolved without a big, slow, expensive court case.
GDPR wasn't designed to prevent this. It's a simple choice: accept tracking and get stuff for free OR pay them for stuff with no tracking.
Everything doesn't have to be free on the Internet
Some companies got into trouble because their pop-ups weren't clear enough as to the consumer's rights per GDPR. So they paid the fine and fixed their wording.
When I want to read something e.g. on t-online.de, I do it in a private browsing window. Not perfect, because of fingerprinting, but better than nothing. Or I skip the article and go somewhere else.
Tracking via cookies means gathering personal data, the exact thing GDPR regulates. GDPR says that data must not be collected except on one of a few lawful bases, one of which is consent. Article 7 clause 4 of the GDPR says:
When assessing whether consent is freely given, utmost account shall be taken of whether [...] the provision of a service, is conditional on consent to the processing of personal data that is not necessary for the performance of that contract.
to me this reads like: "consent does not count if you need to agree in order to access a service" and that they imagined consent as being, "yes, you can have my personal data to serve me personalised ads, because I'd rather have personalised ads than generic ones," which some people (probably not many here!) do think. However, it's only expressed as "account shall be taken" when determining whether consent was "freely given" and the lawful basis does not specify that consent must be "freely given," which is where I imagine these kinds of gaps creep in.
I keep seeing this a lot lately. I also saw one that had the style from the image (accept all or refuse maybe), but if you hit refuse, a second one popped up that said:
[pay to read]
Or
[read for free]
I opened it in private mode and read for free just let me into the article. I’m guessing it accepts all.
I need to verify this, but I vaguely remembered you’re supposed to be able to exit these safely in two clicks maximum, though they sometimes obscure it.
Usually, it’s something like “Customize” then “Save” without checking anything, or just “Reject All”.
It dosn't delete cookies. I use 'Cookie Autodelete' for that togehter with 'I still don't care about cookies', which is the community version of 'I don't care about cookies'. It is much better at removing the Popups.
I would recommend enabling strict mode in Firefox. But then Cookie AutoDelete does not work in Firefox if you enable Total Cookie Protection (which is enabled in strict and standard mode).
But you don't even need an extension to prevent cookie persistence.
For those wanting more information, the extension description states:
This add-on will remove these cookie warnings from almost all websites!
In most cases, the add-on just blocks OR hides cookie related pop-ups.
When it's needed for the website to work properly, it will automatically accept the cookie policy for you (sometimes it will accept all and sometimes only necessary cookie categories, depending on what's easier to do).
"No, I don't want ads. No, I don't want cookies. No, I don't want to even be asked about cookies, or subscribing to your newsletter, or to sign up for access to this article. Fuck off."
The part that annoys me is that I have Do Not Track enabled in my browser and there's one (1) website I use that respects this choice, as intended by GDPR. (geizhals.de)
All others choose to bother me about their stupid ad tracking.
That's because they have to. If I remember correctly it is supposed to be as easy to reject as to accept, but until it has been judged in a court it is "unknown" what the sites can or should do.
Maybe I'm getting things backwards here, but wouldn't disabling cookie persistence actually stop some of the more malicious forms of tracking, where different websites track your activity across websites? I'm not an expert on this specific matter but my understanding was that website A saves a cookie in your browser, which website B then uses to identify you (maybe with some extra steps of shipping that data off to some data broker or w/e but you get the picture). I thought that disabling persistence would stop that from occurring in the sense that once your restart your browser and go to website B, there is nothing from A for them to look at.
It will stop tracking between session (after a restart), but not during a session (or "in session"). There is plenty to be collected during a session and you might even actually use some of that data to correlate a user between sessions.
It's more important to keep cookies separate per sites, like Firefox's Total Cookie Protection does.
I think people really misunderstand cookies and have been lead to get angry at exactly the wrong things which actually give the biggest companies huge advantages so they're fine with all of this mumbojumbo.
When you cant have local cookies, or there are hoops, companies that need not bother with this because they own your browser (Google) or companies that own major search engines (Google) or companies that most other companies rely on for ads or social media integration etc (Google) are tremendously advantaged.
Now, basically only Google can collect a wholistic profile of a user, while regular websites must now waste extra man power implementing completely useless cookie preferences when in reality this should have been simplified, at worst, to 3 buttons.
All, No Marketting, No Telemetry.
Anything else is just the user wasting their time or destroying the functionality of a website for no reason/requiring busy body work to comply with ill conceived regulations.
With the downfall of third party cookies in most browsers, cookies literally just serve as some temporary storage for websites on your local machine. Cookies existing or not existing arent what control whether you are tracked, especially given all the fancy fingerprinting that goes on nowadays.
It's just that cookies are only one tool for tracking. When you accept all you consent to tracking but it doesn't necessarily use cookies for that tracking.
Are you trying to suggest that I would be better to just deny the cookies? I don't know what you're trying to say by linking to that article.
Device fingerprinting as a technique it's pretty easy to defeat. There are plenty of privacy focused browsers that will also include device fingerprinting protection. In fact pretty much any browser that doesn't store cookies will also do this device fingerprinting protection as well.
Settings -> Privacy and Security -> Enhanced Tracking Protection -> Custom -> All cookies (will cause websites to break)
Open site -> it breaks -> do i really need it? (no) Move on to the next site. (yes) Ctrl+I -> Permissions -> Set Cookies - uncheck "Use Default" - Allow
And when I finally lose my shit and just press "accept all" and "save my preferences for an eternity along with all my private information", it still pops up every single time!
These forms are actually about consent of tracking and cookies are just one of the ways to do tracking. You're still consenting to tracking.
Also Firefox Total Cookie Protection is a better solution for cookies. You should enable strict mode and Cookie AutoDelete does not work with Firefox strict mode.
Why oh why didn't the lawmakers add an obligation to use a standardized cookies selection popup.
I remember day one of it coming into effect and it was already obvious this was a necessity.
Lobbying. One of those laws pretending to do the right thing but sabotaged.
Or maybe its even worse than that.
Before you could just have the cookies deleted. But if you do that now you get the awful popup every time, so you just accept them in the end.
I know I do.
This law has made me accept cookies spying.
If you make a vague law that companies can circumvent they will do it.
That's why you force the use of a standardized menu, because nothing else makes sense, no?
The same way you don't leave it to the tobacco manufacturers to implement the warnings on the box ; you force them all to adopt the same one that's clearly visible.
It feels like it's either severe incompetence, or the work of lobbyists. But I don't know enough about the matter
Why not mandate a x by x pixel popup with a specific wording?
I remember this French company, I think SFR (phone), which had to show on their website their condemnation. Since there weren't clear specifications they made it so the message would disappear when you scrolled down one pixel, so almost no one saw it.
Well, that could make the popup unusable depending on screen size. I think the wording is pretty clear, the issue is just that there's no followup and not clear enough incentives to avoid skirting the rules at the moment.
Because those laws were made with good intentions in mind.
But businesses never have good intentions, especially if it eats into their revenue. So they use malicious compliance to make it seem like it is the law that is bad.
So really naive lawmakers then? Come on, that's not how you make a company obey, everyone knows that, yet legislators time and again do an oopsie and make a highly symbolic law that obviously won't work because there's no coercion!
If a website pops up and asks for permission, and I bypass that pop-up in some way (like killing the pop up with an addon or some you can just ignore it and keep scrolling with it on the bottom of the screen)
Until ive clicked agree, do websites just not start tracking or creating or doing anything with cookies? After all, they've acknowledged they need, dont have permission.
Or is this by and large pointless, and unless ive jumped through their hoops, they've already started the page with cookies enabled?
If the site is GDPR-compliant, they are not allowed to set any cookies until you click the accept button. But, a ton of sites and ad agencies are not. For example, Russians commonly just put a "we tracking you, deal with it. [OK]" banner, thinking they are funny, when it's clearly illegal even by Russian law, but they are shielded from it by responsible officials incompetence. Same story in the US, I believe.
legally you’re assuming the correct way it’s supposed to work in a lot of jurisdictions but in practice who actually litigates these sorts of things?
people get away with it all the time.
there’s also tons of sites hosted in places where it’s totally legal to just have cookies with any user from anywhere with or without consent, those might have a permission banner just as a UX thing to make the site feel more “familiar” or “official”. learning how whole contemporary stack works, at least broadly speaking, is one of the only remaining ways to actually be proactive. knowledge is power.
Should have been handled on protocol level. Cookies get priority levels, set browser to only accept required cookies and done. Everyone just wanted to do it the easy way... add a banner and ask the user.. or dont even make the banner, call a third party library that does it for you.. and has its own tracking code.. yay!
I generally just accept because its faster and i have additional filters in place, cookies will be deleted on browser close, and usually a vpn running so i really dont give a shit if the site wants to build a profile out of false data.
Besides opening up and viewing a lot of these sites on private tabs, I'm just getting used to cleaning all cookies after I finished checking up what I wanted.
These forms are actually about consent of tracking and cookies are just one of the ways to do tracking. You're still consenting to tracking.
Also Firefox Total Cookie Protection is a better solution for cookies. You should enable strict mode and Cookie AutoDelete does not work with Firefox strict mode.
brave browser gives you a lot of options to block that bullshit and delete it before it's ever able to make a profile on you...I've already heard what everyone on here has had to say about it. It works and it also works really well against most fingerprinting techniques used by invasive websites
adguard for windows, mac and linux can also be helpful for that stuff.
nextDNS and ReThinkDNS are also helpful for blocking garbage from advertising companies landing on your computer like the leech it is
Out of principle I always reject all, even though they are blocked by pf blocker anyway.
Consent-o-matic is your friend 🌞
Been using it for a long time. In my experience it covers maybe 30 or 40% of sites only.
I still don't care about cookies seems to work for the rest for me!
The issue about that extension is how it handles consent.
You should be aware that it will often just accept all cookies, because that is easier.
That's why you get Cookie Auto Delete.
I'll have to give this a shot. Thanks for the link!
Also, enabling cookie notice blocklists on ublock origin
Today i had a new one:
[ Accept ]
Or
[ Pay to Reject ]
That's when you choose option 3:
[Close tab]
Was it The Sun (the shitty tabloid)? I've seen people get that on it.
It's on many German sites. One of them the tech news site heise.de that regular reports on court rulings deeming the practice illegal.
It feels like every uk news site does it. The guardian and the independent are the ones I have trouble with the most. Reader mode "fixes" it though.
Presumably because no one is actually prepared to pay to read the sun. It's not like it contains any actual news anyway.
The guardian also started doing this
The UK is
slowlyrapidly turning into a shithole for various reasonsGdpr seemed like it was designed to ban this, but lately companies (especially German ones?) seem to be trying this. I guess it won't be resolved without a big, slow, expensive court case.
GDPR wasn't designed to prevent this. It's a simple choice: accept tracking and get stuff for free OR pay them for stuff with no tracking.
Everything doesn't have to be free on the Internet
Some companies got into trouble because their pop-ups weren't clear enough as to the consumer's rights per GDPR. So they paid the fine and fixed their wording.
When I want to read something e.g. on t-online.de, I do it in a private browsing window. Not perfect, because of fingerprinting, but better than nothing. Or I skip the article and go somewhere else.
Tracking via cookies means gathering personal data, the exact thing GDPR regulates. GDPR says that data must not be collected except on one of a few lawful bases, one of which is consent. Article 7 clause 4 of the GDPR says:
to me this reads like: "consent does not count if you need to agree in order to access a service" and that they imagined consent as being, "yes, you can have my personal data to serve me personalised ads, because I'd rather have personalised ads than generic ones," which some people (probably not many here!) do think. However, it's only expressed as "account shall be taken" when determining whether consent was "freely given" and the lawful basis does not specify that consent must be "freely given," which is where I imagine these kinds of gaps creep in.
I keep seeing this a lot lately. I also saw one that had the style from the image (accept all or refuse maybe), but if you hit refuse, a second one popped up that said:
[pay to read]
Or
[read for free]
I opened it in private mode and read for free just let me into the article. I’m guessing it accepts all.
PopUpOff:
[Not Even Playing This Game]
lemme guess
website owned by webedia
I need to verify this, but I vaguely remembered you’re supposed to be able to exit these safely in two clicks maximum, though they sometimes obscure it.
Usually, it’s something like “Customize” then “Save” without checking anything, or just “Reject All”.
it's even more straight forward than that; accepting and rejecting has to be the same number of steps.
So basically 90% of sites aren’t GDPR compliant.
correct!
Correct. But companies seem to not give two fricks about it. There should be harsher punishments in place.
Somebody should in some way pass that information to the companies then.
I've seen a few sites set the toggles so that the on position is for options out instead of allowing the use of.
Unlock origin and you won’t see a cookie message ever again.
Ublock origin, but yes.
No. Uclock Origin.
Is that the plugin that blocks the increasingly unfunny clock memes in c/ProgrammerHumor?
Hehe, naughty keyboard attacks again :)
Is that something you have to enable? I've used ublock for years but I still get cookie popups
Yes. Settings > Filter Lists > Annoyances
settings, filter list and cookie notices. select both lists there.
Accept allBlock allAnd then the companies get all uwu but adblocking is stealing and damages our revenue! 😭
"Save preferences"? Save them where exactly?
In the strictly necessary cookies that you can't turn off you silly billy
This is where they get you.
We can have a necessary cookie, as a treat.
Install "I still don't care about cookies" on Firefox based browsers.
Cookies are declined immediately and the banners closed. Works most of the time unless it's a custom non-standard cookie prompt implementation.
You're welcome.
Consent-o-Matric also works great on Firefox
I too use this.
It dosn't delete cookies. I use 'Cookie Autodelete' for that togehter with 'I still don't care about cookies', which is the community version of 'I don't care about cookies'. It is much better at removing the Popups.
Also try LibreWolf if you want to discard cookies by default
No need to change browser, that's just a setting in Firefox that's enabled by default in LibreWolf but you can simply enable it in Firefox.
Oh, cool, I had no idea. Glad I didn't change just for that haha
I would recommend enabling strict mode in Firefox. But then Cookie AutoDelete does not work in Firefox if you enable Total Cookie Protection (which is enabled in strict and standard mode).
But you don't even need an extension to prevent cookie persistence.
For those wanting more information, the extension description states:
Fair enough but I almost never had it accept anything. I monitor cookies. Perhaps on some sites ot does that, then.
But yea it doesn't delete cookies. I wouldn't want it to anyway? I want to stay logged into my stuff.
I recommend LibreWolf if you want to disable and discard all cookies by default.
No, not really, and taken out of context. Glad someone replied to you already.
Acting like I'm spreading misinformation while your comment still clearly states it declines which it does not. I was correcting that part.
Although I see how my comment could mean all cookies get accepted. Wasn't my intention
Nope, declined
AdNauseam + PopUpOFF + CanvasBlocker + Bypass Paywalls Clean
"No, I don't want ads. No, I don't want cookies. No, I don't want to even be asked about cookies, or subscribing to your newsletter, or to sign up for access to this article. Fuck off."
The part that annoys me is that I have Do Not Track enabled in my browser and there's one (1) website I use that respects this choice, as intended by GDPR. (geizhals.de)
All others choose to bother me about their stupid ad tracking.
The Do Not Track header has been discontinued by most browsers. It's the sad state of affairs.
In an ideal world, all websites shouldn't even show a cookie alert if you have that header on.
Malicious compliance writ large.
Also, the number of hurdles you have to clear for this tells volumes about where the site owner priorities lie.
Hence why the EU is now forcing an "easy way to decline". All compliant websites have a "reject all cookies" button now.
Which I learned on accident, because normally I have Ghostery installed, which just rejects all cookies automatically.
I'm pretty sure that was the law from day 1 and the only difference is they're starting to crack down on it now
That was Adblock Plus.
Hmmm... Must've been a long while ago. I've been using them for... 3? 4? years and never had any ads getting through.
Well, I firmly believe in redemption arcs. Also, the product is just really good right now.
Don't use Ghostery anymore
Why?
Check the Wikipedia page on it.
Yeah? Still not seeing a reason not to use it today. Do you have any specific criticisms?
Breach of trust and owned by a for profit company.
By a different company. Owners changed in 2017.
Which makes a privacy-oriented search engine. Seems like they have a pretty good track record.
Many sites have a one click "reject all" now, and it's getting more common over time.
That's because they have to. If I remember correctly it is supposed to be as easy to reject as to accept, but until it has been judged in a court it is "unknown" what the sites can or should do.
Which doesn't reject all.
They need a cookie to remember your choice otherwise it has to ask you every single time. It’s the paradox of cookies!
There's always a category "necessary", so the preference cookie just falls in that.
i just disabled cookie persistence in my browsers.
now it doesn't matter if i click accept all or not
It does, the GDPR does not talk about cookies but tracking consent. Cookies are one of the tools for tracking.
Also disabling cookie persistence does nothing against in session tracking.
Maybe I'm getting things backwards here, but wouldn't disabling cookie persistence actually stop some of the more malicious forms of tracking, where different websites track your activity across websites? I'm not an expert on this specific matter but my understanding was that website A saves a cookie in your browser, which website B then uses to identify you (maybe with some extra steps of shipping that data off to some data broker or w/e but you get the picture). I thought that disabling persistence would stop that from occurring in the sense that once your restart your browser and go to website B, there is nothing from A for them to look at.
It will stop tracking between session (after a restart), but not during a session (or "in session"). There is plenty to be collected during a session and you might even actually use some of that data to correlate a user between sessions.
It's more important to keep cookies separate per sites, like Firefox's Total Cookie Protection does.
They aren't asking me for permission to track me, they're asking permission to save cookies to that end.
I refuse them the permission they are legally required to acquire from me
I think people really misunderstand cookies and have been lead to get angry at exactly the wrong things which actually give the biggest companies huge advantages so they're fine with all of this mumbojumbo.
When you cant have local cookies, or there are hoops, companies that need not bother with this because they own your browser (Google) or companies that own major search engines (Google) or companies that most other companies rely on for ads or social media integration etc (Google) are tremendously advantaged.
Now, basically only Google can collect a wholistic profile of a user, while regular websites must now waste extra man power implementing completely useless cookie preferences when in reality this should have been simplified, at worst, to 3 buttons.
All, No Marketting, No Telemetry.
Anything else is just the user wasting their time or destroying the functionality of a website for no reason/requiring busy body work to comply with ill conceived regulations.
With the downfall of third party cookies in most browsers, cookies literally just serve as some temporary storage for websites on your local machine. Cookies existing or not existing arent what control whether you are tracked, especially given all the fancy fingerprinting that goes on nowadays.
https://addons.mozilla.org/de/firefox/addon/consent-o-matic/
Also available for other browsers.
Wow, thank you!
Ublock origin is always the solution
That doesn't remove cookie prompts
It totally can of you enable that block list in the preferences/settings.
Just use a browser that doesn't save cookies. Then accept all.
...how does that help?
It's just that cookies are only one tool for tracking. When you accept all you consent to tracking but it doesn't necessarily use cookies for that tracking.
Haha yeah, I doubt cookies are even a necessity in many modern stacks
No, they are a necessity for so many things, no doubt about that. They've plenty of legitimate uses.
You can hold anything in a session on the server as 1kb here and there is nothing nowadays
And how do you think the session is kept between requests? With a cookie.
Are you trying to suggest that I would be better to just deny the cookies? I don't know what you're trying to say by linking to that article.
Device fingerprinting as a technique it's pretty easy to defeat. There are plenty of privacy focused browsers that will also include device fingerprinting protection. In fact pretty much any browser that doesn't store cookies will also do this device fingerprinting protection as well.
It's really hard to know how efficient a device fingerprinting protection is.
Block all 3rd party cookies by default. Done.
Block. According to the GDPR consent has to be explicit, so never pressing "Accept" is surprisingly a valid tactic.
Enforcement, however, is a different story.
ublock has filter lists for these things. Doesn't always work but helps a lot.
the nice part is that if you don't ever respond to the popup, they are not allowed to presume you accepted
Settings -> Privacy and Security -> Enhanced Tracking Protection -> Custom -> All cookies (will cause websites to break)
Open site -> it breaks -> do i really need it? (no) Move on to the next site. (yes) Ctrl+I -> Permissions -> Set Cookies - uncheck "Use Default" - Allow
And when I finally lose my shit and just press "accept all" and "save my preferences for an eternity along with all my private information", it still pops up every single time!
Consent-o-magic
And then you have to hope they honor your choice.
I will on rare occasions accept all if the site gives me the option to reject all but necessary.
Accept all with Cookie Auto delete, best of both annoying worlds
Also use I still don't care about cookies for auto do whatever you want in combination with cookie auto-delete
I didn't know that was a thing, genius!
These forms are actually about consent of tracking and cookies are just one of the ways to do tracking. You're still consenting to tracking.
Also Firefox Total Cookie Protection is a better solution for cookies. You should enable strict mode and Cookie AutoDelete does not work with Firefox strict mode.
Reject all
~ tada! ~
Yeah, it's also super easy to prove P!=NP. Just do this one step:
prove it
~ tada! ~
Idk why anyone is still struggling with it.
YMMV. Some of the pop ups like to make the "Reject" button difficult to find.
Legitimate Interest has entered the chat
Why oh why didn't the lawmakers add an obligation to use a standardized cookies selection popup.
I remember day one of it coming into effect and it was already obvious this was a necessity.
Lobbying. One of those laws pretending to do the right thing but sabotaged.
Or maybe its even worse than that. Before you could just have the cookies deleted. But if you do that now you get the awful popup every time, so you just accept them in the end.
I know I do.
This law has made me accept cookies spying.
That's already part of the GDPR, companies just aren't complying with it.
From the official GDPR site:
"Make it easy"
If you make a vague law that companies can circumvent they will do it.
That's why you force the use of a standardized menu, because nothing else makes sense, no? The same way you don't leave it to the tobacco manufacturers to implement the warnings on the box ; you force them all to adopt the same one that's clearly visible.
It feels like it's either severe incompetence, or the work of lobbyists. But I don't know enough about the matter
Not "make it easy", it's "make it as easy", meaning it can't be easier to accept than to revoke, much clearer bar.
And you dont think that's really vague though?
Why not mandate a x by x pixel popup with a specific wording?
I remember this French company, I think SFR (phone), which had to show on their website their condemnation. Since there weren't clear specifications they made it so the message would disappear when you scrolled down one pixel, so almost no one saw it.
Well, that could make the popup unusable depending on screen size. I think the wording is pretty clear, the issue is just that there's no followup and not clear enough incentives to avoid skirting the rules at the moment.
Pixel or screen %, you know what I mean.
But yeah no followup seems to be an issue with the GDPR
Because those laws were made with good intentions in mind.
But businesses never have good intentions, especially if it eats into their revenue. So they use malicious compliance to make it seem like it is the law that is bad.
So really naive lawmakers then? Come on, that's not how you make a company obey, everyone knows that, yet legislators time and again do an oopsie and make a highly symbolic law that obviously won't work because there's no coercion!
So, probably stupid question.
If a website pops up and asks for permission, and I bypass that pop-up in some way (like killing the pop up with an addon or some you can just ignore it and keep scrolling with it on the bottom of the screen)
Until ive clicked agree, do websites just not start tracking or creating or doing anything with cookies? After all, they've acknowledged they need, dont have permission.
Or is this by and large pointless, and unless ive jumped through their hoops, they've already started the page with cookies enabled?
If the site is GDPR-compliant, they are not allowed to set any cookies until you click the accept button. But, a ton of sites and ad agencies are not. For example, Russians commonly just put a "we tracking you, deal with it. [OK]" banner, thinking they are funny, when it's clearly illegal even by Russian law, but they are shielded from it by responsible officials incompetence. Same story in the US, I believe.
depends on the site.
legally you’re assuming the correct way it’s supposed to work in a lot of jurisdictions but in practice who actually litigates these sorts of things?
people get away with it all the time.
there’s also tons of sites hosted in places where it’s totally legal to just have cookies with any user from anywhere with or without consent, those might have a permission banner just as a UX thing to make the site feel more “familiar” or “official”. learning how whole contemporary stack works, at least broadly speaking, is one of the only remaining ways to actually be proactive. knowledge is power.
I don't understand why US sites display this when their audience is US only.
Which US sites have US visitors only? Apart from government.
California also requires this, as well as Canada
Probably from a common template.
The correct way to deal with cookies : eat them!
I may have diabetes...
In the EU: bottom is same as the top one (but I still have ghostery etc).
Or just use PopUpOff.
I don't consent to jack shit that tries to hold my time hostage lol
Should have been handled on protocol level. Cookies get priority levels, set browser to only accept required cookies and done. Everyone just wanted to do it the easy way... add a banner and ask the user.. or dont even make the banner, call a third party library that does it for you.. and has its own tracking code.. yay!
We also had the Do Not Track header, and then Microsoft fucked it up and now no browsers support it.
I generally just accept because its faster and i have additional filters in place, cookies will be deleted on browser close, and usually a vpn running so i really dont give a shit if the site wants to build a profile out of false data.
You.... You close your browser? You monster! But at least you leave all of your tabs along, right? Right...?
Of that i am guilty, lol
I know i really shouldnt, but it is just so convenient
10
Besides opening up and viewing a lot of these sites on private tabs, I'm just getting used to cleaning all cookies after I finished checking up what I wanted.
Just use Firefox strict mode, no need to do the work when it can be automated.
Just install Cookie Autodelete
These forms are actually about consent of tracking and cookies are just one of the ways to do tracking. You're still consenting to tracking.
Also Firefox Total Cookie Protection is a better solution for cookies. You should enable strict mode and Cookie AutoDelete does not work with Firefox strict mode.
Just use Ghostery, mate. Does it all for you.
The easier way is to do it in your browser.
Been using Hush, works pretty well
OK Google
brave browser gives you a lot of options to block that bullshit and delete it before it's ever able to make a profile on you...I've already heard what everyone on here has had to say about it. It works and it also works really well against most fingerprinting techniques used by invasive websites
adguard for windows, mac and linux can also be helpful for that stuff.
nextDNS and ReThinkDNS are also helpful for blocking garbage from advertising companies landing on your computer like the leech it is
You can also just toggle on a blocklist for that in ublock origin
bypass paywalls is in ublock origin now?
is it ever going to be in ublock lite?
This is about cookie banners, not paywalls.
No.