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.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    81 year ago

    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.

      • Jamie
        link
        fedilink
        English
        51 year ago

        You’d be surprised how many sites are still functional enough without JS. Even then, you can often keep a lot of the tracking sites blocked and only whitelist the essentials.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          21 year ago

          Honestly my opinion comes from my professional experience as a web developer. I only use react and every website I’ve ever created requires JavaScript.

          • @Kilamaos
            link
            English
            11 year ago

            This. While react is entirely js, plenty enough have js somewhere for something. Manually whitelisting stuff is a widely unnecessary burden.

          • @netvorOP
            link
            English
            0
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            “I only use React” therefore “Most sites rely on JavaScript”?

            So you wrote more than half of the Internet? Impressive…

          • @Blamemeta
            link
            English
            -11 year ago

            Yeah, pretty much ever web framework in the past 2 decades is JS or TS.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        41 year ago

        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.

        • Jamie
          link
          fedilink
          English
          31 year ago

          I pair it with AdNauseum and have my browser “click” on every ad it sees. I don’t know if those are being filtered on the other end or not, but I like to think that I’m making the advertisers pay for clicks they aren’t really getting and messing with their metrics.

    • @Geth
      link
      English
      11 year ago

      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.