[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!

[jstimpfle]

That escalated quickly.

[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.