A cookie notice that seeks permission to share your details with “848 of our partners” and “actively scan device details for identification”.

    • macniel@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      3 months ago

      In the EU and UK this is also forbidden as rejecting should be as simple as accepting cookies.

    • ssm@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      The most effective solution is just to wipe all cookies every time you close your browser, or creating strict cookie whitelists. Actually managing cookies on webpages is for normies.

      • tetris11@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        and then every time you visit that one good news site, you have to go through their cookie banner each time. That or install a cookie-denying addon and hope that they don’t sellout or sell your data.

        • davidagain@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          You have a total of four choices:

          1a. Wipe all their cookies every time, reject them every time they ask.
          1b. Wipe all their cookies every time, accept them every time they ask. 2a. Don’t wipe cookies, keep the “essential” ones. 2b. Don’t wipe cookies, accept all our most of them.

          2b is the only scenario where you might not get asked again. 1b is the easiest no thanks.

          I use the duck duck go browser because it makes that the default and offers to whitelist sites for cookies if you log into them (but you can turn that off in settings). It also autorejects a lot of cookies that use common popups.

          • tetris11@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            2a seems the most rational, no?

            Also maybe switch to mullvad-browser instead of DDG browser, since DDG has some controversies (search: “Zach Edwards” on the wiki) on what data it saves.

      • Nobilmantis@feddit.it
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        Sadly that is not an option for firefox on android yet (while it is on desktop), the only choises you are left with are:

        • Use ff focus that completely resets the browser deleting every cookie in the process
        • Use normal ff and:
        1. Just accept that you have to deal with cookies and care to carefully select Reject on every banner
        2. Turn on delete data on “exit button press” (which sadly deletes everything again, with no possibility to whitelist some websites).

        That said, i believe Firefox should have (even on android) their “total cookie protection” thing which puts them in separate containers for each domain, so you are somewhat protected by cookie cross-tracking, but i would still prefer to delete most of them at close.

    • Petter1@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Consent-o-matic browser extension can handle a lot of cookie banners and automatically rejects all possible cookies.

    • Fluba@lemdro.id
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      I just implemented a cookie consent bar on my company’s website and the agencies/vendors who advertise for us were giving me so much shit for having reject available right away. But thankfully our Legal department said keep it there… Or else. “Hands tied… Soooooorry!”

  • prof_wafflez@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    As someone who works in tech, I can confidently say that many people plainly do not understand what cookies do and why they exist. There are plenty of cookies that are good and useful, but third party advertising tracking cookies are the devil folks don’t like. Necessary, performance and functional cookies are all chill.

    • unwarlikeExtortion@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      A question: What is preventing the site using one huge cookie for all purposes, thus preventing fully functional use of the site without also enabling all other forms of tracking?

      • prof_wafflez@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Cookies are very small snippets of code that have a specific purpose. Making a one-size-fits-all cookie would make them complicated and much harder to track - which goes against the point of a cookie. Also, cookies are often independent of each other because they are from different providers/different tools. Having a one-size-fits-all cookie would also present a security hazard and make laws similar to GDPR about cookie tracking difficult to implement. An example of a tool that actually does use one cookie is Adobe’s Marketo. You can read some more about them here. https://termly.io/resources/articles/types-of-internet-cookies/

    • paraphrand@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Back in the early 2000s, we were promised that the magic of ads online would be that they are always relevant and not terrible anymore. This is why the targeting and tracking was valid to do.

      It never happened. Not for a moment.

  • wuphysics87@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    We all have a fundamental right to privacy, which is constantly violated. Not just on a daily basis, but on a minute by minute basis.

    But to play devil’s advocate for a moment to assuage some FUD around posts like this, how many of the absurd amount of cookies overlap in otherwise innoculous ways. For instance, product tracking cookies. Say you bought a pumpkin on Amazon, and that drops a gorde cookie, a pumpkin spice cookie, a cornucopia cookie etc.

    That’s certainly not the same as buy a pumpkin, track your location around the nearest pumpkin patch, read your grandma’s emails about pumpkins, and collect information to determine your likelihood of buying another pumpkin based on your sexual orientation.

    The latter certainly exists, but does anyone know much about the former? How prevalent would they be in that 850?

  • The Quuuuuill@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    If the partner count is larger than the number of bananas I can imagine being in a bunch I decline cookies. If I can’t disable performance or targeting cookies I decline cookies. These are my rules

    • Max-P@lemmy.max-p.me
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      I switched to cookie allowlist, and manually add the sites I want to remember me. I don’t want to play the cookie game anymore, period. The only reason they ask is because legally they have to, and even then they do the bare minimum and use dark patterns to make it as hard as possible to decline cookies.

      No more cookies for anyone, should have used them responsibly in the first place.

    • Jimmycrackcrack@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      I think you actually usually can get them to list them all, never much interested, they’re all going to be completely random names you never heard of, just so long as I can reject them all, that’s all I care about, otherwise I have to browse a different website on principle.

  • Dark Arc@social.packetloss.gg
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    It’s truly crazy how much our information gets shared these days and how long it lingers.

    My house spent a few years as a rental. I still get mail from people who haven’t lived here in over a decade (despite deliberate efforts to stop it).

    My grandpa signed up for ever “store card” you can imagine to get all the deals and rewards programs. His landline virtually never stops ringing… On August 5th alone he got, no joke, 43 spam calls (I have his landline hooked up to Jolly Roger Telephone to try and filter some of this out and help him out, so I’m forming that statistic off of the emails from them).

    It’s completely ridiculous and all of it needs to stop.

  • SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    And the EU has forced us to answer that goddamn “do you accept cookies?” question on every frigging website. How many people just click “accept all” to get on with things?

    • neutronst4r@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      THAT IS A BIG FAT LIE! The EU did not force any such thing. The EU simply said that people’s data cannot be used without consent. This is the website asking for consent.

      Website developers have a perfectly valid choice not to collect any data. They chose their profits above your privacy.

      I have a website and I don’t have a popup asking for consent, because I don’t need to, because I don’t collect any data.

        • Dark Arc@social.packetloss.gg
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          That seems like a lemmy limitation that probably needs worked on (i.e. prompting for alt text for images so apps can just read the alt text and folks are reminded to think of it).

          EDIT: It’s been brought to my attention that the Lemmy server software actually does support alt-text … but I’m not sure how prevalent this is with clients (I don’t remember ever seeing a prompt for it).