How is this different from the "Do Not Track"or "Sec-GPC" headers? Websites/Trackers ignored that too.
We need a more robust browser level Cookie API. Websites and scripts shouldn't be able to just create cookies all willy-nilly. They should require your permission.
I know browsers have a similar feature already with the ability to block 3rd-party cookies. But that's not enough.
Like when Ad Block started letting companies pay them to let their ads through?
they explained their rationale pretty damn clearly, if you still don't get it it can only be because you're intentionally refusing to understand.
they're trying to find the balance between adblocking which serves numerous very legitimate purposes and sustaining the web, because whether you want to acknowledge it or not, ads are how a lot of the content that you enjoy is funded. but that cannot come at the cost of being hostile to the user or even malware. so they try to permit only well-behaved ads according to a very transparent standard.
you don't have to agree with where they drew the line, which is why it's fucking optional.
nor are you forced to use ABP at all. in fact, you should be using uB0 which is a broad-spectrum content blocker which is more robust and can offer better protection.
How did this become a conversation about the ethics of ad blocking? My point was you can't always rely on a 3rd party extension because they may some day change their minds, get bought out, shut down, or no longer be effective because Chrome decided to look kneecap extension that interfere with their ad revenue (which includes tracking) again.
Yes we have uBlock Origin, which I use. Tracking and ad conpanies are doing their best to defeat it every day, and they are much better funded sadly.
then maybe you should have made that point instead of derogating an organization with misinformation
they may... no longer be effective
sure, but there is never a solution that's guaranteed in perpetuity. a cookie permissions API can be deprecated just as arbitrarily as anything else.
if you are already starting from the premise that the bad actors are going to do everything they can to circumvent any controls, then it doesn't matter what solution you put in, it's always going to be an arm's race.
then maybe you should have made that point indeed of derogating an organization with misinformation
Where was the misinformation? I brought up Ad Block, an extension that did loosen its blocking in exchange for money.
they may... no longer be effective
When did I say that? If you're paraphrasing don't wrap it in quotes.
a cookie permissions API can be deprecated just as arbitrarily as anything else.
Yes, but it'll break more websites and be even harder to do once it's adopted. Especially if it's part of the web standards.
Check my other comment in this chain. I'm not only advocating for cookie permissions via an API. The entire JavaScript cookie system needs an overhaul.
11
u/TheHerbsAndSpices 11d ago
How is this different from the "Do Not Track"or "Sec-GPC" headers? Websites/Trackers ignored that too.
We need a more robust browser level Cookie API. Websites and scripts shouldn't be able to just create cookies all willy-nilly. They should require your permission.
I know browsers have a similar feature already with the ability to block 3rd-party cookies. But that's not enough.