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.

  • Navarian@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    77
    ·
    1 year ago

    The annoyances filters in uBlock Origin take care of these, I believe there are a few filters specifically for this exact issue, named appropriately.

  • honey-im-meat-grinding@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    63
    ·
    1 year ago

    Friendly reminder that consent popups that don’t have a clear “reject” option right next to the “accept” button are a violation of GDPR. You can report these to your country’s data/privacy governmental body - for example Datatilsynet in Norway/Denmark, CNIL in France. You don’t have to do it for every website that you go to, obviously, but if you do it even once you’re helping solve this problem for more users than just yourself.

    Others have given you some good technical solutions - personally I use the uBlock Origin + annoyance filters enabled approach, and use Firefox on Android to get the same experience there.

  • jochem@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    1 year ago

    Consent-o-matic on laptop. Usually I’ll go through the options and be annoyed. Sometimes I can’t be bothered and hit accept all.

    • Geth@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is the way. It’s developed by some people from a Danish university and it’s really trying to navigate the shitty popups and find that decline button. Best add-on I have next to ublock.

    • CaptObvious@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Came here to suggest this. Consent-o-Matic seems to be a good tool for dealing with these popups.

  • Babu Menos@lemmy.studio
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    1 year ago

    You can install uBlock Origin, the imho best ad blocker under the sun, and activate both the “EasyList Annoyances Cookie Notices” and the “AdGuard Annoyances Cookie Notices” lists. https://ublockorigin.com uBlock is available for all the most common platforms Chrome, Firefox, Edge, Opera, and there’s a manual install, too.

  • sramder@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    1 year ago

    Consent-o-matic seems to work about 80% of the time. I run the Firefox plugin at home and the Safari extension on my phone.

  • CAPSLOCKFTW@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 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@jamie.moe
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 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.

        • danhab99@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 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.

          • netvor@lemmy.worldOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            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…

          • Kilamaos@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

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

      • CAPSLOCKFTW@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 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@jamie.moe
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 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.

          • CaptObvious@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            If there were a way to be sure that this is not tied to my identity, I’d be all over wasting their money as much as possible.

    • Geth@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 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.

  • Frantisek@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    I don’t care about cookies extension or ublock origin with Fanboy’s Cookie List + Cookie autodelete extension

  • Proteus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’ve been dabbling with duckduckgo recently. there’s a function in the browser settings to allow only what’s necessary for the site.

  • Knusper@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    There is an HTTP Header, called “Do Not Track”, but unfortunately, it has been broken.
    The idea was that even under legislations that allow assuming users want to be tracked, this header being set by explicit user action would have been clear evidence that this assumption is wrong in this case.

    Unfortunately, Google and Facebook refused to comply outright and with their tracking software running on pretty much all webpages, compliance was never an option for all those webpages.

    And Microsoft killed it off completely, by setting it per default in Internet Explorer. Might sound like a good thing, but it meant that the header could be there, even if that particular user actually fucking loves being tracked, which meant it was pretty much legally void.

  • Kissaki@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    The dialogues are not primarily about cookie consent but consent handling personal data. With that in mind, my primary concern is not giving that consent unnecessarily. I’m not interested in any personalized tracking when they could do enough usage statistic without consent and without sharing personal data with other parties. (That’s why I won’t use browser extensions that simply accept everything with the primary purpose of the consent dialogs not showing up.)

    Consent-O-Matic is a browser extension that will decline any consent as far as possible.

    It doesn’t work on every website but that’s better than auto-accepting - because I don’t want to give consent.

    Sometimes, when the barrier is not too high, I use decline all or open choices and save (verifying defaults are off). Depends on what it is though; often times it’s not worth it to me to invest just to read their content. (Especially when it’s regurgitated from other sources.)

    If I can’t use a website without consenting to personalized tracking I leave.

    Another alternative is using alternate frontends to websites/services or the web archive.

    My general view is that any service they could want to provide would be able to be served without consent requests. Ads can be served without personalized tracking (and can still be contextual to content). Visitor and usage tracking/stats can be done in a way without sharing that information to third parties and without individual user tracking. Legitimate interest and handling data to service (according to terms/contract) do not need consent. So really, there is no need for any consent.

    /edit: I will be trying out ublock origin’s hiding and reading up on Firefox automatic rejection mentioned in other comments. I expect them to behave better than the Consent-O-Matic delay of it going through all settings.

    • U de Recife@lemmy.sdfeu.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Thanks for pointing out Consent-O-Matic. I’m EU based, so that really comes handy.

      I’m having a blast with this kind of suggestions. And because of that I’m loving Lemmy. Thanks!

    • netvor@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      from the plugin description

      In most cases, it just blocks or hides cookie related pop-ups. When it’s needed for the website to work properly, it will automatically accept the cookie policy for you (sometimes it will accept all and sometimes only necessary cookie categories, depending on what’s easier to do). It doesn’t delete cookies.

      …not sure about that. In my heart of hearts, I always want to help out fellow developers with the performance/diag data. I guess I also almost always want “functionality”.

      The only thing I never want (and that “preference” is often worth leaving the site entirely if it’s not easy to express that) is the marketing/social scam. So I’d prefer the plugin to choose this for me.

      I understand it’s not technically easy to do so, unless there is some standardized way – at which point we probably would not need plugin for that.

  • smoregooseboard@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    If I have to click: ‘deny’ a gazillion times, then I just leave. If they have the alternative: ‘deny all’, then it’s OK.

  • david@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Duck duck go browser with auto refuse turned on. It stops tracking cookies by default. And then I burn them all anyway when I’m done.