Doesn't this lead to an all-or-nothing approach?

I don't want randomnewssite to track me. But a favorite online store...I do want help with recommendations.

joeframbach 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

You would presumably be logged in to your favorite store site, and they would be using your identifying session to make recommendations, not anonymous tracking cookies.

	▲	paulddraper 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Eh, maybe. It's easier to click a single button than hunt for how to create/access an account for the brand.

▲

dymk 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Then sign in, thats enough signal for them to track you

	▲	frollogaston 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Logging in isn't consent for tracking. They can even support login by itself without a tracking banner.

▲

qurren 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Just disable cookies on your browser by default, and enable it for the sites that you need to log in to.

Ironically, this has the effect of cookie banners reappearing every time because they cannot place a cookie that says that you have rejected them.

▲

Phemist 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Malicious compliance. You do not need a cookie to "store" the fact you have rejected them. They can simply assume you have rejected them from the lack of cookies. They can store a cookie once you (have gone out of your way to) accept them.

	▲	frollogaston 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Lack of cookies could mean you never visited the site before.

▲

mzajc 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Unless disabling cookies means treating all cookies as session cookies (meaning you can still be followed within a session), this has the fun side effect of breaking pretty much every CAPTCHA firewall like Anubis, Cloudflare Turnstile, and any other that relies on cookies.

Unfortunately this means you have to view a lot of the web through archive.today or web.archive.org - I would know because I have uMatrix configured this way.

	▲	frollogaston 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Session cookies for non-whitelisted sites is a nice balance between usability and privacy. Session cookies for all sites would be fine if passkeys weren't like "We support passkeys. Do you want to use a passkey? Press ok again to use your passkey. Do you consent to using your passkey? Now please authenticate yourself to use the passkey... √ Thank you for using passkeys. Press ok to continue."
	▲	qurren 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Honestly I've found that it's often the local businesses that shoot themselves in the foot more by this. I disable cookies for Amazon because I need to login; if a local business wants me to buy from them directly they need to: 1. Not give me a CAPTCHA or cloudflare shit 2. Give me free shipping and a lower price than Amazon minus 5% cashback that I would get on Amazon 3. No registration needed to check out and I'll buy from the local website. It's really not a high bar, they need to learn to not shoot themselves in the foot. As for the news websites -- bleh. If they want me to read it, make it easy to read. As in, I click into it, show me the content. If I get a popup, banner, anything that covers up the content, I bounce. I'll get the news from social media anyway. If they'd rather I get it from their news website, they need to learn to not make me bounce. I'm not opposed to advertising if they want to get revenue from that, but it should not track me, not cover up content, and not load megabytes of JavaScript to do it.

▲

tcfhgj 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

you can be tracked without cookies - the cookie dialogs are about tracking and processing of personal data in general.

-> not really sensible

▲

amelius 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Just configure your browser to ask for cookies for that store only?