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
      7
      ·
      1 month ago

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

    • Fluba@lemdro.id
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month 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!”

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

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

      • filister@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

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

      • Void Vortex@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month 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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

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

          • Void Vortex@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 month 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
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 month 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.

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