Follow

Can anyone explain why we settled for those horrible misleading and annoying notice pop-ups instead of making also something the browser prompts for like location and webcam?

From , we can't expect anything more. But why doesn't do this? Or ?

I've been running a cookie-free browser for a few months now and I bumped in quite some "news websites" that literally don't work without cookies.

It's like they're saying "yeah, if we can't track you, we have no reason to even try to serve you any content, fuck off".

@stevenroose you mean you have your browser configured not to accept cookies at all? That doesn't break all your saved logins?

@harding On my phone, I have a browser where I do have and that I use for logging in (Fennec, with JS disabled using uBlock) and another for opening random links that doesn't have cookies () but does have JS.

@harding Ironically these "can we set cookies" notices use cookies to remember your choice so if your browser doesn't support cookies, you'll get them over and over. It's ridiculous. The whole EU cookie law fiasco literally made every website add another cookie and show you an annoying banner or even splash screen if you don't set it.

Would it be possible to get to implement a per-cookie prompt? :/

@harding
In Firefox, your saved logins are different than cookies. My browser is set to disallow 3rd-party cookies, and my browser also saves some of my passwords.

@StampedingLonghorn Sure, I have my Firefox configured the same way. I was thinking about first-party cookies, without which the only way to stay logged in to a site is to have it keep a session token in the URL, which is undesirable for several reasons.

@harding
I also have it setup where all cookies are deleted everytime I close the browser.

@stevenroose There's addon for that...
I don't care about cookies

@fatboy Ah haha I thought you were saying you didn't care about cookies, not that that was the name of the addon 😅

@stevenroose yes it seems like something that should have been solved technologically not by a law mandating annoying popups

Firefox' state partitioning is a move in the right direction imo, it makes cookies harder to use for tracking while it doesn't disable cookie-for-login uses:
mastodon.social/@yogthos/10578

@orionwl Hmm yeah that makes sense. Though reversely, a lot of those isolation features might also hinder progress of federated services. UX while browsing websites that actually integrate with a federated service you are logged into is already quite bad.
But that might be a separate thing not sure.

@stevenroose i think you've answered your own question why Firefox dev hasn't been more aggressive pursuing features like this—cookies and third-party state do have their uses—and not to throw the baby away with the bath water

this feature is very much a compromise that should still make uses like that possible, the state is isolated between each "application"

@orionwl Even though my suggestion of having a prompt could quite easily accomodate a "allow all cookies from site X" or something like that. It's just the idea of having cookie mgmt explicitly done on the client side instead of passing regulation to let services faithfully deal with it.
IMO it's a failure of the web browser sector to have let it come thus far the the felt like it had to intervene.

@stevenroose the thing is, while people tend to dislike prompts and micromanagement, most users will not care whether they're in the client or server side 😀

@orionwl Sure, but the server side prompt results in a promise from the provider "sure thing I won't store cookies 👍" that is ultimately only enforced by laws and a judiciary system so enforcement is super indirect and expensive. While a client-side prompt would ultimately put the user in full direct control.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
unidentified instance

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!