[meetups323]

Blaming the website for your own agent doing something you don't want it to is learned helplessness.

Every marketing cookie generates revenue for the website in some way or another. The website wants revenue, so it asks the user agent to maintain those cookies. The user agent agrees. Then the operator of the user agent gets upset that the website asked their agent to store the cookies? Get upset that your agent agreed, not that a request was made.

Or better yet, don't get upset at all and just solve the darned problem yourself. Is this Hacker News or Complier News?

[Rygian]

Blaming the user-agent for accepting an abusive amount of cookies set by the website is outright bad faith.

The only entity with any real power to decide which cookies the website uses is the website itself.

Asking the user or the user agent to comb through cookies and decide, one by one, which ones seem marketing-related and which ones are technically required, and then block, is way too much to ask from a regular internet user.

I have tried, but fail to see good faith in your reply.

[grumbel]

The browser is the one who stores and sends cookies. It would be trivial to make that action explicit and only at the users request. That wouldn't even be a new feature, that used to be how things worked 20 years ago. Lynx is however the only browser left that I know that still asks you before storing cookies.

You don't even have to shift through cookies for this to work, you can just reject all by default until the user explicitly request them to be stored (or use a whitelist or wait until the users tried to login that would necessitate a cookie, etc.) Lots of possibilities.

> is way too much to ask from a regular internet user.

That's kind of the point. By making it all transparent and seamless browser makers played into the hand of marketing companies. If cookies had a cost and would degrade the user experience, they might be thinking twice before putting hundreds of them on a site.

Marketing companies are just making use of the tools they are given. And browser manufacturers gave them a lot of tools, while taking control away from the user.

[woojoo666]

There are many different yet legitimate uses for cookies. It's impractical to expect the user to sift through to find the ones that are necessary and the ones that aren't. Even if the browser requests them beforehand, how is the user supposed to know if the request is for a marketing cookie or functional cookie.

> That's kind of the point. By making it all transparent and seamless browser makers played into the hand of marketing companies. If cookies had a cost and would degrade the user experience, they might be thinking twice before putting hundreds of them on a site.

Cookies do have a cost, namely the bad PR from people complaining about the unnecessary tracking cookies. If you think that's not enough, then you are free to reject cookies as well to degrade your own experience. But they aren't mutually exclusive. Complaints and bad PR can also drive users away from the site and enact change.

[grumbel]

For cookies to have a cost they would need to be visible first. Brave does that right, by not only blocking lots of them out of the box, but also by showing you how many it blocked straight in the address bar, without any extra clicks. Firefox in contrast doesn't do that. It doesn't even give an easy way to inspect the cookies, it just has a "Clear cookies and site data" button that doesn't even tell you what it has stored or what it is going to delete.

Simply put, browser could to a lot better job at preventing this.

As for legitimate use, I don't really see much. Login handling is the obvious one, but I'd argue that login handling itself is in dire need of a rework and should be handled by a proper Web standard, not site specific hacks and "Save password" guesswork.

[woojoo666]

That's fair, I would love for browsers to give more transparency on the tracking front.

As for legitimate use cases, I think shopping carts on most online marketplaces use cookies.

[Rygian]

> The browser is the one who stores and sends cookies.

The website is the one who decides which cookies to send in the first place. The browser never invents a cookie out of thin air.

> you can just reject all by default until the user explicitly request them to be stored

Which cookies should the user "request to be stored" and which cookies can the user safely ignore? How does the user tell them apart? Why should the user have to bother?

> If cookies had a cost and would degrade the user experience

Cookies are already degrading my user experience; you may have noticed the cookie consent popups on many sites. Those popups exist because cookies were being abused (ie. non-consensually) for purposes that are not essential to the functioning of the website. Such uses are now banned in the EU.

> And browser manufacturers gave them [marketing companies] a lot of tools

Browser manufacturers did not build those tools for the sake of marketing companies.

[grumbel]

> The website is the one who decides which cookies to send in the first place.

I can't fault websites for making use of functions the browser offers them.

> Which cookies should the user "request to be stored"

Have a simple toggle button for "Save state for this website" and discard everything when that button isn't pressed. Most website I visit I don't care about and have no need to keep any state. The few that I need to log into, I can just press that button. Knit that together with the "Save Passwords" function and it might be pretty much automatic most of the time.

> Those popups exist because cookies were being abused

Those popups exist because browsers failed to do their job. If the users wants warning for cookies, that's something the browsers can do just fine by itself, yet few do (e.g. Lynx).

> Browser manufacturers did not build those tools for the sake of marketing companies.

I'd disagree on that. Google makes their money with ads, so of course they'll optimize both Chrome and Search for maximum ad friendliness. Meanwhile Firefox is also run on Google ad money, so they can't step to far out of line either. There aren't many browsers that are build for the user first. The "you are the product" quote applies to browsers just as much as it does to Facebook.

[kevin_thibedeau]

> The only entity with any real power to decide which cookies the website uses is the website itself.

I have JS locked down and third-party cookies disabled. This site only managed to set one cookie for me because of my power to decide. Despite that, all content was readable.

[jstimpfle]

Cookies as a mechanism are useful and required for a solid modern web experience. However, tracking cookies are arguably the opposite of that. A typical modern website with marketing comes with, I don't know, 100s of cookies. Are you really arguing that the user should be required to vet each individual cookie whenever following a link with unvetted cookies?

Or how do you solve this problem? Personally, the most I can be arsed to do is install some Adblock Plugin. I did that only a few months ago and I'm not even sure that it improved my experience by a lot.

[zasdffaa]

> and required for a solid modern web experience

Absence of cookies don't make things unstable (non-solid?), and fuck knows what 'modern' is supposed to mean, or why it's good.

> Or how do you solve this problem?

Block all cookies except for rare moments like posting on HN, which then immediately get deleted. And no JS, which means CPU is trivial (so no burn-a-core-for-every-open-tab which is so common with page-sized pointless animations). Many problems can be solved if you want them to be.

[jstimpfle]

But you realize you're the oddball that considers the problem solved like that? I'm not sure that being a "hacker" means to straight out refuse things. You're missing out on a lot of fun and inspiring information (and yes, many many hours wasted to irrelevant content).

[zasdffaa]

You make your choices and I make mine. Should a person make the informed choice to immerse themselves in the web as-is with all its problems & risks, ok, but most people just pick the easy path then bitch after. I'm not one of them, and straight out refusal is in fact a viable option for me.

If I do need anything more, there's VMs. BTW what 'fun and inspiring information' do you refer to? Shadertoy is a loss I grant, but what else?

[jstimpfle]

If you miss Shadertoy it won't be hard to imagine other similar things, of which there are plenty. Anything that requires interactivity beyond the one provided by HTML & CSS will obviously require Javascript. Any personalized experience (not only suggestions which yes are evil, but also personal storage) will obviously require cookies to function.

Deleting Cookies on exit (and/or at regular intervals) will probably not help much in terms of avoiding tracking, especially if you log back in using your reinitialized cookies.

[zasdffaa]

> it won't be hard to imagine other similar things, of which there are plenty

which again you don't give.

> Anything that requires interactivity ... obviously require Javascript

jeez, no shit, I get it.

> (some defeatist blah about cookies)

Whatever.

You just persistently don't get it. These are my choices. I made them carefully. They suit me. They may not suit you. We could even compromise if you made an effort to see what I'm after but you won't/can't. Now please try to understand I'm not you, and just back off!

[eternityforest]

How exactly will sites remember that you are logged in? And how would be have any web apps that aren't horrendous without JS?

Also, where is this burn-a-core-for-every-open-tab stuff? Many websites are highly optimized and do not use much CPU. Not enough to be noticed without actually looking at the numbers anyway.

What sites have page size animations these days?

[zasdffaa]

> How exactly will sites remember that you are logged in?

I don't want them to. I log back in if necessary (browser remembers id/pswd). For those few I need to stay logged in, I use a VM and save the state - I'm more concerned about controlling JS than cookies in such cases.

> And how would be have any web apps that aren't horrendous without JS?

I don't use web apps. My tradeoff.

> Also, where is this burn-a-core-for-every-open-tab stuff? Many websites are highly optimized and do not use much CPU.

Oddly, it seems to be corporate bullshit sites that are the worse offenders. Can't find one but you're right, it's not all by any means. I retract.

[eternityforest]

You might be right on corporate bullshit sites, there are a few that can burn CPU(Usually without any actual content worth viewing....). I guess they are meant to be shown at a meeting on a high end business laptop?

But I think the vast majority of people would be upset if sites didn't keep you logged in and there were no web apps.

It's even worse if you prefer FOSS and use web apps, since Chromium no longer has password sync, Brave and FF block advanced features, and if you use BitWarden it takes a few extra clicks.

[zasdffaa]

> Usually without any actual content worth viewing

Yeah. The less info the more clipart/general crap you'll get. Weird innit.

As to your other points, I can't argue. I accept a higher level of inconvenience for a higher level of security, that's just my choice. I won't inflict it on others who make different tradeoffs.

[jimmaswell]

There is no problem to solve, the cookies can't hurt you and the website needs to stay afloat.

[jstimpfle]

To state the obvious, some people don't love the extensive profiles that are created of them.

[eternityforest]

Those people should be able to avoid the profiling, but any solution should be aimed at protecting those people, without impacting the 95% who don't care enough to give up convenience or pay for private services too much.

[jstimpfle]

Maybe my view is warped (I'm from Germany) but 95% seems a tad high...

[eternityforest]

It might be. I actually have no idea how to assess the real number.

The Cisco survey(https://iapp.org/news/a/new-cisco-study-emphasizes-consumer-...) says 79% are willing to invest time or money to protect their privacy, but a lot less seem to actually do anything about it.

Almost everyone I know is on Facebook and Gmail, most seem to use Chrome, etc.

It seems to vary a lot with subculture. Programmers always seem to be more willing to sacrifice convenience, and people who watch porn seem to be more interested in privacy than most.

I suspect there's a pretty large segment that only cares in theory, at most, and only then just on principle because of the other people who have more interesting data.

Maybe not 95% but probably 90% of certain subsets at least.

[matthewmacleod]

Blaming others for making legitimate complaints about pervasive bad practices is learned assholishness.

We should all complain loudly and far more than we do about the creeping tendency of many companies to do so many obviously shitty things, instead of merely shrugging our shoulders.

[zasdffaa]

Word. Tired of these "I don't want this but I won't spend any time or money on fixing it so someone else should do it" posts.

Hint: it's under Tools|Preferences in firefox/palemoon

[Rygian]

No, it's not under "Tools|Preferences."

There is no setting anywhere, in any web browser, to "retain cookies that are technically necessary and reject marketing cookies" which is the desirable behaviour.

[zasdffaa]

Define marketing cookie for me - do you mean 3rd party?

(Some possible control via Tools|Preferences|Exceptions... button allows you to customise by website, although I've never used it. Or just disallow all, which is what I do)

---

Edit: answer the question please, there may be an easy solution to what you want.

Edit2: No reply because god forbid there's an actual way you could take control, that would simply ruin everything (in a parallel universe, man complains the streets are rife with face stabbing but when presented with proof they're not, stabs self in face to prove otherwise).

Biggest problem with learned helplessness is that they like it that way. Gives them something to be angrily resentful about.

[rini17]

Easy, enable only cookies for the things you want (maintain your session with 1st website, plus core functionality like payments). Everything else are marketing cookies.

I used umatrix for years but gave up. The guessing what to enable to get a site to work got tiresome, and IIRC there was also problem with browser support.

[Rygian]

Définition of cookies I don't consent to: any cookie that is not mandatory for the site to technically work.

[zasdffaa]

You don't answer my question, then use a vague term of 'technically work' to ensure I can't give you useful info tl;dr you don't want to be helped.

[Rygian]

I'm sorry that the correct answer to your question is vague. Such is the nature of the Internet. Not my choice, not my fault.