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
      1451·
      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
      401·
      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
        9·
        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
          5·
          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
            5·
            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.

            • davidagain@lemmy.world
              2·
              3 months ago

              Thank you. Where can I find the wiki?

              Edit: Wired says

              DuckDuckGo Created a Privacy Exception for Microsoft Cybersecurity and privacy researcher Zach Edwards discovered a glaring hole in the privacy protections of DuckDuckGo’s purportedly privacy-focused browser: By examining the browser’s data flows on Facebook-owned website Workplace.com, Edwards found that the site’s Microsoft-placed tracking scripts continued to communicate back to Microsoft-owned domains like Bing and LinkedIn. DuckDuckGo CEO Gabriel Weinberg responded to Edwards on Twitter, admitting that “our search syndication agreement prevents us from stopping Microsoft-owned scripts from loading”—essentially admitting that a partnership deal DuckDuckGo struck with Microsoft includes creating a carveout that lets Microsoft track users of its browsers. Weinberg added that DuckDuckGo is “working to change that.” (A company spokesperson reiterated in an email to WIRED Weinberg’s assertion that none of this applies to DuckDuckGo search, adding that both its search and its browser offer more privacy protections than the competition.) In the meantime, the revelation blew a glaring hole of its own in the company’s reputation as a rare privacy-preserving tech firm. Turns out this surveillance capitalism thing is pretty hard to escape.

        • ngwoo@lemmy.worldEnglish
          3·
          3 months ago

          The only way for the site to know to not show the pop-up again is ironically by saving that information in a cookie

          • Angry_Autist (he/him)@lemmy.world
            41·
            3 months ago

            Or you could block all cookies from all associated domains and use uBlock Origin element picker to hide the popup.

            I’m tired of expecting service and site owners to be human beings, and have learned the tools needed to curate my own experience. Hell I used to browse with javascript off for years until every shitbag UI graduate decided to cram it into every single site regardless of applicability.

      • bloubz@lemmygrad.ml
        4·
        3 months ago

        No? If you accept tracking while on the page, this has consequences on your current session

      • Nobilmantis@feddit.it
        3·
        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
      19·
      3 months ago

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

      • filister@lemmy.world
        10·
        3 months ago

        Reject all is actually you agreeing on the legitimate interests loophole so this is also problematic.

      • Void Vortex@lemmy.ml
        5·
        3 months ago

        I used to rely on Consent-O-Matic a lot, but I’m somewhat uncomfortable by the fact that the extension has full access to all web page content. I mean I understand why, but I’m still uncomfortable with it. In the end I ended up uninstalling it because it broke some sites so that they wouldn’t load at all, or got stuck into an infinite reload loop. On majority of cases it works alright though.

        • Petter1@lemm.ee
          3·
          3 months ago

          Yea, every extension has full access to any website, if you not make use of a whitelist/blacklist.

          • Void Vortex@lemmy.ml
            21·
            3 months ago

            Some extensions, such as SponsorBlock for YouTube actually limit themselves so they can only operate when the browser is on youtube.com. This can be declared in the extension manifest. It’s a separate permission to access data on all web sites vs. access data on a specific website.

            • xthexder@l.sw0.com
              2·
              3 months ago

              Not helpful when something like Consent-o-matic needs to operate on every possible website with a cookie banner.

              I have had the same concerns, since watching it click through things faster than I can see is scary. Maybe some day someone sneaks in a cookie banner detector that activates on banking pages to steal your money? uBlock Origin has similar risks, but at least it’s not actively controlling browser inputs.

    • Fluba@lemdro.idEnglish
      5·
      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!”