4 ms·

I'm failing to understand the supposed nobility some people are commenting on. 99% of people don't understand or don't care anyway. Annoying and confusing those

by sambe 11y ago

I'm failing to understand the supposed nobility some people are commenting on. 99% of people don't understand or don't care anyway. Annoying and confusing those people is not noble. The people that do care will likely find that turning off cookies break their favourite sites, so the warning is not practically actionable. Some sites now offer me the choice of cookies, the choice to participate in a quick survey, a choice to use the iOS app, another iOS app choice that is identical to the first, the choice to instantly connect to a live customer service representative and no choice about watching a partner video. Might as well bring back all the animated GIFs and marquee text.

manigandham 11y ago
This can be said of lots of other issues like Safari's war on internet infrastructure by banning 3rd party cookies for no reason. Cookies are a known entity, easy to check and easy to clear, not to mention they also held opt-out status for all those networks that offered it. Progress should be understanding and choice, not brute force approaches like these that just fatigue users and undermine the entire cause.
- michaelt 11y ago
  Users who don't like Safari's privacy defaults can just change them, though. If you like understanding and choice, why not let users understand and choose turning third party cookies on, instead of turning them off?
  - manigandham 11y ago
    The defaults are the issue, by going against the greater convention on something that only a few minority really have a big concern with. None of the other browsers do this and it hasn't really led to any privacy benefits, rather it's increased the level of tracking from something that was easily controlled and understood to now fingerprinting and even ISP level identification.
- realityking 11y ago
  Tracking users is internet infrastructure? For one, I'm sorely disappointed that Firefox never went trough with changing the default.
  - manigandham 11y ago
    Cookies are internet infrastructure. Identity/state management is just a natural part of the way the internet works. This sort of thing would be better solved through regulation on the network side rather than just browsers doing whatever they want.

by sambe 11y ago

manigandham 11y ago

This can be said of lots of other issues like Safari's war on internet infrastructure by banning 3rd party cookies for no reason. Cookies are a known entity, easy to check and easy to clear, not to mention they also held opt-out status for all those networks that offered it. Progress should be understanding and choice, not brute force approaches like these that just fatigue users and undermine the entire cause.

michaelt 11y ago
Users who don't like Safari's privacy defaults can just change them, though. If you like understanding and choice, why not let users understand and choose turning third party cookies on, instead of turning them off?
- manigandham 11y ago
  The defaults are the issue, by going against the greater convention on something that only a few minority really have a big concern with. None of the other browsers do this and it hasn't really led to any privacy benefits, rather it's increased the level of tracking from something that was easily controlled and understood to now fingerprinting and even ISP level identification.
realityking 11y ago
Tracking users is internet infrastructure? For one, I'm sorely disappointed that Firefox never went trough with changing the default.
- manigandham 11y ago
  Cookies are internet infrastructure. Identity/state management is just a natural part of the way the internet works. This sort of thing would be better solved through regulation on the network side rather than just browsers doing whatever they want.