It’s not even “Incognito” (what a misnomer too), this is a Gecko-based browser

  • PumpedSardines
    link
    English
    721 year ago

    I feel like for straw poll it’s more valid, they probably do it to try and avoid people voting more than once.

    • @WhoRogerOP
      link
      English
      31 year ago

      A bit yes, but any technique like that can be used to fingerprint and deanonymize users.

      • @bustrpoindextr
        link
        English
        61 year ago

        Yes, but that’s the only way you can trust electronic voting, by removing anonymity

    • @ditherwither
      link
      English
      11 year ago

      Yes, but if you wanted to, you can write a script that mass votes and bypasses this (if there is no captcha)

  • @SevereLow
    link
    English
    481 year ago

    Cookies are not evil per se… but data mining companies made them like that.

    I’m administrating an online store and cookies are responsible for the customer’s cart, plus their user session / logged in state.

    As an admin I adhere to the “golden rule”, thus there are no creepy trackers on store. I don’t like them and I don’t want customers to face the same thing on websites that I manage.

    That said, cookies are needed for user session & fraud protection. Instead of nuking cookies we shall kick the trackers out.

    • @WhoRogerOP
      link
      English
      121 year ago

      Yea but all that kind of functionality can work with (permanent) private mode as well. I don’t use a lot of web services so I can log in when I need or make a pwa like with Lemmy here.

      • @SevereLow
        link
        English
        41 year ago

        True. It can work with private mode, but not with browser set to block all cookies, or to nuke JavaScript 😅

  • Quinten
    link
    English
    47
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    “One vote per IP-address” - So they already tackled the problem that people can vote more then once.

    Straight-up asshole design.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      10
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      That’s also asshole design. Most people are behind some form of nat. It’s especially egregious for customers of ISPs who use CGNAT.

    • @WhoRogerOP
      link
      English
      71 year ago

      Exactly what I think. They also block VPNs and such.

    • @WhoRogerOP
      link
      English
      121 year ago

      I’ll look into that. I believe web sites shouldn’t have any way to detect private mode, right?

      • Eavolution
        link
        fedilink
        91 year ago

        I wonder if it tries to save a cookie then read it back? I don’t really know how any of this works but that sounds like a way to detect it that’s fairly infallible.

        • curiosityLynx
          link
          fedilink
          121 year ago

          Writing a cookie and reading it back should work just fine even in incognito mode. It just gets deleted once incognito is closed.

  • @WhiteTiger
    link
    English
    431 year ago

    I mean, of all sites, polls make the most sense to require cookies to avoid duplicate votes.

    • @danprs
      link
      English
      121 year ago

      Wouldn’t the better solution be to keep a log of previous client IPs, on the server side? Sure, VPN will circumvent it, but it’s much easier for me to clear a cookie 100 times then to connect to 100 different VPNs.

      • wander1236
        link
        fedilink
        English
        21 year ago

        IP blocking would be really bad if the poll is for students staying in dorms at a university or for people on the same cell carrier.

      • @Cynosure
        link
        English
        11 year ago

        IPs rotate too often and it would only allow 1 vote per modem.

      • @rehabdoll
        link
        English
        01 year ago

        CGNAT is a thing with regards to IPv4 addresses. So that won’t work.

      • @LufyCZ
        link
        English
        01 year ago

        Not if you don’t know what cookies even are. Stops the regular Joe just fine

        • @Katana314
          link
          English
          41 year ago

          All it takes to swing a poll by 8,000 votes is one person that knows how to clear cookies. It’s not even about stopping regular joes.

          • @aimfireready
            link
            English
            -11 year ago

            *one person who knows how to clear cookies…and has WAY too much time on his hands.

            • @Katana314
              link
              English
              21 year ago

              50 votes in a browser would take an hour, but 5,000,000 votes in a browser’s dev tools would take an hour and fifteen minutes; it’s the kind of thing people can write a bit of code to do for them. (I’m a web dev, this doesn’t sound like a challenge to me if there’s no security)

    • Milady
      link
      English
      -101 year ago

      Cookies are really inappropriate for this use…

      • @Beliriel
        link
        English
        111 year ago

        You need to track the user for a poll. Sessions don’t work since private browsing enables duplicate votes. Tracking the IP can block users from the same network/wifi. Cookies get auto-sent and browser storage is only clientside. Really not many more options aside from making an account on a site and logging in. I find it a pretty reasonable solution actually.

        • Milady
          link
          English
          -171 year ago

          Cookies fall short just the same as sessions. you’re asking the user to pinkie promise they won’t clear their cookies / modify them.

          An account seems the most logical. You need to avoid duplicates ; it’s not really about privacy here. You’ll only make a tradeoff between accomplishing no duplicates and letting users do what they want.

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

        It could be useful to prevent accidental duplicate votes. But definitely not sufficient for malicious actors.

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

          There’s no way to prevent a malicious user from voting multiple times in an online poll, unless you can somehow tie it to a real world identity (and even then it’s not going to be easy).

          This is just something to stop the workarounds that a 50 year old CEO was aware of.

      • @LufyCZ
        link
        English
        41 year ago

        I’d think they serve their purpose just fine

        • @slampisko
          link
          English
          161 year ago

          Clearing cookies is super easy, barely an inconvenience. If someone wants to vote on something a lot and cookies are the only barrier, they might as well not be there

          • @Nommer
            link
            English
            3
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            This. Did it before to fuck with people in online forums

  • Dick Justice
    link
    English
    381 year ago

    That’s when I stop giving them traffic. There’s far too many alternatives to do otherwise.

    • @ilickfrogs
      link
      English
      181 year ago

      Enter.

      “NOPE”

      clicks back

      And proceed to chose next search result.

  • Draconic NEO
    link
    English
    271 year ago

    There’s an extension that allows you to hide incognito mode from websites called Hide Private Mode I’m not sure why browsers don’t do this by default (maybe it’s some funny compliance thing) it would greatly improve privacy.

    • @WhoRogerOP
      link
      English
      61 year ago

      Thx. It’s weird, but I guess that’s now part of Firefox now, to be hypocrites.

      Also why the heck does the browser need to ping Google every time I launch a private session? I can’t even fathom a reasonable answer.

      • @jcg
        link
        English
        11 year ago

        Did you opt in to sending your usage statistics to Google wine you first installed Chrome?

        • @WhoRogerOP
          link
          English
          11 year ago

          Chrome? Why would I ever install that shit?

          • @jcg
            link
            English
            31 year ago

            What browser are you using that pings Google?

            • @WhoRogerOP
              link
              English
              11 year ago

              IceRaven - FF for Android fork that tries to remove all this crap but isn’t 100% there yet due to all the nonsense Mozilla includes.

              Generic FF did the same last time I used it. I think Mull doesn’t, but I haven’t used it in a while.

  • DreamySweet
    link
    fedilink
    English
    261 year ago

    It’s not pointless, it’s so they can track you.

    what a misnomer too

    It’s crazy how many people think “incognito mode” prevents people from seeing what websites they are visiting.

    • funkless
      link
      English
      91 year ago

      yeah, it’s for buying secret Christmas presents for your wife

      • DreamySweet
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -41 year ago

        They aren’t a secret if she knows how to access the router’s control panel.

        • @PixxlMan
          link
          English
          191 year ago

          Why would anyone regularly access a routers control panel just to ruin the surprise of Christmas presents?

          • DreamySweet
            link
            fedilink
            English
            01 year ago

            No idea, but she could. I would use public wifi and a private window for it, just to be sure.

            • @AlataOrange
              link
              English
              21 year ago

              Is there so little trust in your relationship that you feel the need to go to such extreme lengths to make them happy?

              • DreamySweet
                link
                fedilink
                English
                11 year ago

                Yeah. If I don’t keep them happy, they’ll stab me while I’m asleep.

          • @nero
            link
            English
            11 year ago

            They can see what you visited though

            • @Cynosure
              link
              English
              11 year ago

              Wouldn’t DoH fix that?

              • @nero
                link
                English
                11 year ago

                No clue what DoH is supposed to be, but that’s probably on me.

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

                yes but most routers don’t do dns in the first place or if they do even fewer log the traffic but yes DoT and DoH fixes this

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

              very fewer routers log dns traffic normally if you want to log internet activity you have to get a separate device for it

  • Izzy
    link
    English
    231 year ago

    Any websites that doesn’t just work with a simple ad blocker or still has ads I just close and never return.

    • 𝔼𝕩𝕦𝕤𝕚𝕒
      link
      English
      241 year ago

      “Oops! Looks like you’re using an adblocker! Please pay a subscription!”

      Oops looks like I’m gonna check the comments for someone who pasted your article for free!

      • @MBM
        link
        English
        -11 year ago

        Just don’t complain when people no longer write good articles because there’s no money in it

        • 𝔼𝕩𝕦𝕤𝕚𝕒
          link
          English
          111 year ago

          Adblockers are borne of intrusive ads. If they were sidebar things like they used to be I’d be much less inclined to use one and just let them collect their ad revenue. Nowadays though there’s gotta be a video, a video embedded at the top, a pop-up ad, a break in an article every 10 lines of text for an ad, and then a delayed popup for when you get halfway down the page, PLUS the sidebar and banner ads.

          • R0cket_M00se
            link
            English
            31 year ago

            Exactly, sidebar and banner are fine. If that’s all I see I’ll let it slide. The ones that make you stop reading to chase down the little black “x” on a pop up or separate the text with a wall of ad, fuck that shit.

        • @hydra
          link
          English
          11 year ago

          Quit wasting my bandwidth, an adblocker makes the difference between a loaded page and a useless one in unstable mobile connections

  • @nieceandtows
    link
    English
    221 year ago

    It kind of makes sense for strawpoll, because without some sort of cookies, they wouldn’t know if the same person is voting multiple times. But they should say something like ‘incognito mode makes the votes inaccurate, please visit on normal mode’

    • @joyjoy
      link
      English
      131 year ago

      One vote per IP-Address allowed.

      They already have your IP. “Incognito” mode doesn’t change that.

      • BraveSirZaphod
        link
        fedilink
        81 year ago

        That does have the consequence of allowing only one person to vote per public IP, which on large networks may correspond to quite a lot of users.

        That probably doesn’t matter much for a simple internet straw poll, but I can imagine situations where IP-based uniqueness isn’t reliable enough.

      • @Pokadots
        link
        English
        41 year ago

        What if you have multiple people voting from the same place/public IP?

      • @sacbuntchris
        link
        English
        21 year ago

        That doesn’t work for dynamic IPs

  • @kaotic
    link
    English
    171 year ago

    I kind of understand this one though, 99% of the time stuff like this is just bullshit. But this is an effort to stop users from voting multiple times.

  • @lynny
    link
    English
    121 year ago

    Sites like this I just close the tab and use uBlacklist to hide them from any search results.

    • @WhoRogerOP
      link
      English
      121 year ago

      It’s IceRaven, but I have it set to permanent private mode. I dont need to deal with cookies of every shitty site.

      • @Drun
        link
        English
        -101 year ago

        It just how internet works, dude. Most of the sites can’t work without cookies at all.

        • @grue
          link
          English
          151 year ago

          We need to be teaching sites that working that way is unacceptable, not accepting it.

        • @WhoRogerOP
          link
          English
          81 year ago

          Well maybe some need cookies internally, that doesn’t mean I need to be storing them permanently. Most web sites are so full of scripts and bullshit that it’s infinitely much easier to disable all the nonsense and run in permanent private mode.

  • @possiblylinux127
    link
    English
    101 year ago

    Honestly people should just set there browser to clear cookies on close