This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Any cons to just right-click and block the page element with ublock?
Yeah, it takes longer
If I'm given the option, I always choose to reject all. I don't know if the company behind it actually sees that or not, but it makes me feel better anyway.
If the site doesnt work without cookies depends on how much I want to browse I will accept knowing that my browser nukes everything or I will just not browse that site.
Horrendous that this isn't just a browser setting that can be applied universally. It's 100% opt out every time.
https://github.com/cavi-au/Consent-O-Matic This can do it for you on most sites in most browsers.
That's unnecessary. Not clicking anything is legally identical to opting out. So just install uBO and add the cookie list filter and block those annoying banners entirely.
You're not wrong, but in my experience those lists cause some sites to not work anymore, the whole site will stay dark waiting for the cookie pop-up for example, or you can't scroll. I still use uBO to block ads but Consent-O-Matic gives me a better experience on those sites.
Did you try to dismiss then manually or use the filter list?
Disabling uBO, dismissing the cookie pop-up and then re-enabling uBO usually works, but is a lot more work than just running Consent-O-Matic in the background.
You didn't answer my question. Do you have to cookie list filtered in uBO or are you just using the default list?
I was using the cookie lists but I stopped using them due to the aforementioned problems.
ah ok, sorry.
I have it, and it does help, but it seems more often than not I still get a pop up for cookies.
You can report websites that it failed to act upon in the extension window
Ublock Origin has that option!
Where?
Settings, filter list, cookie notices
Well, it could have been but just like robot.txt everyone ignored the Do-not-track Header in HTTP requests.
That's why I leave this off. Ironically the "Do Not Track" signal is used to more effectively track you.
Similarly, the federal Do Not Call list, used to stop domestic spammers from calling you, is used by international spammers as a source of known active phone numbers to call. Because you need to actively add yourself to the list, so it’s a pretty solid list of active phone numbers. And the list is only enforced domestically, so all of the callers from overseas know they’ll never be prosecuted for using it.
That mistake I did make. God knows no one pays attention to this list, domestic or abroad. I talked to an attorney and he said they have to call you several times for it to be a violation.
I didn't read the article but I'm pretty sure reject is the right answer.
Not according to Cookie Monster! He accepts all cookies. Always.
Touché
It’s good enough for me.
I always accept a cookie in real life, so why would I turn it down online?
tl;dr: "Reject All" will not break the site.
Also, technically there's still a cookie after that:
The choice is recorded in a consent cookie
The article seems to ride on people's anxiety about walls of text & choices presented by various cookie popups (not all of which even have a "Reject all" option) and IMHO isn't quite clear enough that "Reject all" is the best option for 99% of use cases.
You do not need to ask for consent to use functional cookies, only for ones that are used for tracking, which is why you'll still have some cookies left afterwards and why properly coded sites don't break from the rejection.
Most websites could strip out all of the 3rd party spyware and by doing so get rid of the popup entirely. They'll never do it because money, obviously, and sometimes instead cripple their site to blackmail you into accepting them.
My flow is usually:
[when my cookie auto decline eztension doesn’t work]
I generally reject all. Then check for those sneaky sites that keep "legitimate interest" cookies ticked. I really doubt their idea of legitimate and my idea of legitimate align in any way.
It's kinda funny that they're "legitimate interest", as that infers that the other ones aren't legitmate.
I have no idea how an ad servicing company I have never heard of could have a legitimate interest in my online activities.
The same way certain people have a 'legitimate' interest in the jewelry in your house.
They have an interest, but it isn't in your best interest.
I use uMatrix to control exactly which cookies I accept, and only accept what I need.
My browser autodeletes cookies, and blocks cookies popups. Though I have set exceptions for sites, I log in to.
My primary browser profile allows only whitelisted cookies. It also allows only whitelisted Javascript, so I don't see the popups. If this breaks a site beyond usefulness, I seriously consider whether I really need that site (and if it falls into the <2% where the answer is "yes", I either whitelist it or open it in the window for the other profile that functions on a blacklist basis).
That's a lot more manual management than most people want to bother with, though.
I always wonder if accepting all + blocking 3rd party cookies through browser settings is a sensible choice. One is left with 1st party cookies and a few browser have mechanisms in place to avoid these to be read by non-originating websites...
Blocking all 3rd party cookies tends to break quite a few things, as websites often use different domains to handle things like logins.
I've found addons like Cookie Autodelete to be a more functional option, it allows those cookies to exist until I close the tab, and if the domain isn't on a whitelist, they get deleted five minutes later. And it works for first party cookies too.
It does take a while to build that whitelist, and sometimes you forget to set it and wipe something you'd rather have kept, though.
That's the thing: I use ISDCAC + block 3rd party and I have literally never experienced breakage.
