2 ms·
I don’t think so, else we should change the name. Cookies are sent to the server on every request so it has tracking implications that locally caching something
by hombre_fatal 4y ago
I don’t think so, else we should change the name. Cookies are sent to the server on every request so it has tracking implications that locally caching something like dark mode preferences does not.
One issue is that there’s a hysteria over cookies which muddies the water.
- potatoz2 4y agoIt’s trivial to emulate cookies with other Web APIs (storage + service worker, for one). You’re focusing on the label of the toggle and not user intent. If a website can send information about my visit 2 days ago to an upstream server, clearly my expectation of “Disable cookies” is broken.
- hombre_fatal 4y agoThen it should be called disable client persistence or something more clear, imo. Cookies is already a ridiculous jargon word esp for the general public.
- maxerickson 4y agoFirefox calls it "Cookies and site data". Seems clear and to the point.