This might be just EU thing, but is there an effective way to deal with endless “accept/reject cookies” dialogues?
Regardless of the politics behind, I think we can all agree that current state of practice around these dialogues is …just awful.
Basically every site seems to use some sort of common middleware to create the actual dialogue and it’s rare case when they are actually useful and user friendly — or at least not trying to “get you”. At least for me, this leads to being more likely to look for “reject all” or even leave, even if my actual general preference is not that. I’ve just seen too many of them where clicking anything but “accept all” will lead to some sort of visual punishment.
Moreover, the fact that the dialogues are often once per domain, and by definition per-device and per-browser, they are just … darn … everywhere, all the frickin’ time.
Question: What strategy have you developed over time to deal with these annoying flies? Just “accept all” muscle memory? Plugins? Using just one site (lemmy.world, obviously) and nothing else? Something better?
Bonus, question (technical take): is there a perspective that this could be dealt on browser technical level? To me it smells like the kind of problem that could be solved in a similar way like language – ie. via HTTP headers that come from browser preferences.
You must log in or register to comment.
Consent-o-matic on laptop. Usually I’ll go through the options and be annoyed. Sometimes I can’t be bothered and hit accept all.
This is the way. It’s developed by some people from a Danish university and it’s really trying to navigate the shitty popups and find that decline button. Best add-on I have next to ublock.
On mobile Opera blocks them ok.
Came here to suggest this. Consent-o-Matic seems to be a good tool for dealing with these popups.
Consent-o-matic seems to work about 80% of the time. I run the Firefox plugin at home and the Safari extension on my phone.
Does it deny-o-matic?
I think the desktop version lets you configure more fine grained preferences, but yes it’s designed to deny by default.
Alternative for if you want to say no to the cookies:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/consent-o-matic/
Consent-o-matic is great but it does occasionally get stuck in an endless loop on particularly devious websites.
You can change a couple of settings in Firefox to deal with most (but not all) instantly.
Commenter there says
Careful, mode 2 means reject all or fall back to accept all if there is no Reject All button.
so at least with the post’s used value 2 it’s not a replacement or equivalent alternative to Consent-O-Matic.
I don’t care about cookies extension or ublock origin with Fanboy’s Cookie List + Cookie autodelete extension
I recommend “I still don’t care about cookies” because that extension didn’t sell out.
noScript with blocking all Scripts by default. Most sites rely on javascript to ask you the cookie question. Of course that will disable all other javascript functionality which i have to enable manually if I need it.
Most sites rely on JavaScript for everything
Yes but I prefer blocking everything unless whitelisted. It is not convenient, i’m used to it though. And since most sites rely on third party sites for consent management I can use the sites java script functions if I want to by whitelisting. Note that I operate that way because of security and privacy concerns and as an act of protest and not to go around consent pop up that’s just a nice side effect.
I’ve tried the no JavaScript experience for a couple of months, but honestly it breaks to much of the internet for it to be a solution for most people. For me personally it was a worse experience than just having it fully enabled.
There is an HTTP Header, called “Do Not Track”, but unfortunately, it has been broken.
The idea was that even under legislations that allow assuming users want to be tracked, this header being set by explicit user action would have been clear evidence that this assumption is wrong in this case.Unfortunately, Google and Facebook refused to comply outright and with their tracking software running on pretty much all webpages, compliance was never an option for all those webpages.
And Microsoft killed it off completely, by setting it per default in Internet Explorer. Might sound like a good thing, but it meant that the header could be there, even if that particular user actually fucking loves being tracked, which meant it was pretty much legally void.
I’ve been dabbling with duckduckgo recently. there’s a function in the browser settings to allow only what’s necessary for the site.
If I have to click: ‘deny’ a gazillion times, then I just leave. If they have the alternative: ‘deny all’, then it’s OK.
I have a strict 2-click rule. If I’m not able to disagree to all cookies with two clicks I’m leaving the site again
2 clicks or 10 seconds, whichever comes first.
The dialogues are not primarily about cookie consent but consent handling personal data. With that in mind, my primary concern is not giving that consent unnecessarily. I’m not interested in any personalized tracking when they could do enough usage statistic without consent and without sharing personal data with other parties. (That’s why I won’t use browser extensions that simply accept everything with the primary purpose of the consent dialogs not showing up.)
Consent-O-Matic is a browser extension that will decline any consent as far as possible.
It doesn’t work on every website but that’s better than auto-accepting - because I don’t want to give consent.
Sometimes, when the barrier is not too high, I use decline all or open choices and save (verifying defaults are off). Depends on what it is though; often times it’s not worth it to me to invest just to read their content. (Especially when it’s regurgitated from other sources.)
If I can’t use a website without consenting to personalized tracking I leave.
Another alternative is using alternate frontends to websites/services or the web archive.
My general view is that any service they could want to provide would be able to be served without consent requests. Ads can be served without personalized tracking (and can still be contextual to content). Visitor and usage tracking/stats can be done in a way without sharing that information to third parties and without individual user tracking. Legitimate interest and handling data to service (according to terms/contract) do not need consent. So really, there is no need for any consent.
/edit: I will be trying out ublock origin’s hiding and reading up on Firefox automatic rejection mentioned in other comments. I expect them to behave better than the Consent-O-Matic delay of it going through all settings.
I installed Hush (for Apple devices). Totally even forgot about cookie prompts
Firefox has settings to automatically hit accept or to automatically hit deny or to first try to hit deny then hit accept if it didn’t work. You could end up agreeing to things you might not want to either way though (as sometimes opt out and deny are seperate things you need to do both for.)
The annoyances filters in uBlock Origin take care of these, I believe there are a few filters specifically for this exact issue, named appropriately.
Do you know how it handles the actual cookies? Does it auto accept/reject or just block the site from making cookies?
It simply hides them, equivalent to just not doing anything. It would be illegal in the EU if the site tracked users in this case, but U block can also block trackers, so even if they tried it wouldn’t work.
I open ‘settings’ or ‘show more’ and disable all I can on most aitea, as that’s usually enough. Some sites ar such a nousanse I either avoid them or just open a private window, accept all, read what I want to read and close the window, thus wiping all cookies.
I don’t have a helpful answer, I’m just commenting so I can find out if anyone else does…
That’s not how this works. Save the post if you want to return to it later. You will not be notified of new answers in this thread if you comment.
