this post was submitted on 06 Apr 2026
704 points (90.6% liked)

Privacy

9480 readers
228 users here now

A community for Lemmy users interested in privacy

Rules:

  1. Be civil
  2. No spam posting
  3. Keep posts on-topic
  4. No trolling

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 13igTyme@piefed.social 6 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Should be denying all. I refuse to use websites that say there are "functional" or "required" cookies. That's bullshit. Also use extension that block and/or scrub cookies.

[–] lena 42 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Some cookies are useful, like the ones keeping you logged in. Not all cookies are created with the sole purpose of tracking you.

[–] tyler@programming.dev 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

And no law on the planet requires a notification for those kinds of cookies.

[–] fushuan@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 day ago

No, but if they have other cookies, the options range between "yes" and "only essential". The popup is for the other ones, but it also notifies you that you won't get zero, which they kinda do need to say if the popup shows up.

[–] DisgruntledGorillaGang@reddthat.com 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I can just log back in when I need to be, thank you.

[–] lena 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

So you log again every single time you visit a website? I don't get the Luddite-y response people have when someone mentions cookies, ones that aren't cross-site don't impair your privacy.

[–] DisgruntledGorillaGang@reddthat.com 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yup, every single time. Not hard when you use a password manager.

Also, lmao, how the hell is rejecting cookies, something that corporations have exploited to make the internet an increasinly hostile place, a "Luddite-y" response? Read up on the Luddites sometime. They are wildly mischaracterized. They weren't anti-progress like people have been propogandized to believe, they were anti-exploitation of workers.

Actually, now that I think about it, that is a Luddite-y response, and I'm damn proud of it.

[–] lena 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Aye that's fair, my comparison was too much of a hyperbole. But why not just block cross-site cookies?

[–] DisgruntledGorillaGang@reddthat.com 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Because there's no good way to do that reliably and easily, because the corporate world is run by douchebags with a rapists-mentality.

[–] lena 2 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

This is in the default (Standard) Firefox anti-tracking settings

[–] DisgruntledGorillaGang@reddthat.com 1 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

I don't use standard Firefox since they started enshitifying, but looking at it, it looks like they basically sandbox each website so that they can't see each others cookies. If that solution works for you, then go for it! But every website you visit is still leaving those cookies, and I'd personally rather purge them all and start fresh each session so I know there's no funny business going on.

[–] lena 1 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

I don't use standard Firefox since they started enshitifying

Any Firefox forks should have this option; even Chrome (and Chromium) has it.

All a website with only first-party cookies can learn about you is "I've seen this user before", which is only an issue if you're worried a news site or something is trying to discern your private information from the articles you read, but for me the convenience of first-party cookies is worth it. I can see why you'd keep them disabled though.

The Firefox forks I use probably do, but they also have purge on by default, so I don't think about it. I don't want any website to know anything about me unless I explicitly log into my account. I would probably feel differently if every website wasn't constantly trying to suck up all my data all the time, but they've used up all my good will so it's scorched earth they're getting from me.

[–] Opisek@piefed.blahaj.zone 16 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Apart from keeping you logged in, like the other commenter mentioned, cookies can for example be used to save the theme you are using (light/dark) or the language you picked. It would be annoying to have to reselect that every time you move to a different subpage.

[–] tyler@programming.dev 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Theme can use local storage, instead of cookies.

[–] Opisek@piefed.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 day ago

This breaks once you've got server-sided rendering.

[–] XLE@piefed.social 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Your browser passes theme and language recommendations to every site you visit. So outside of passwords, there are fewer reasons for cookies than you may presume.

[–] Opisek@piefed.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 day ago

They're only recommendations. You should still respect the user's choice if they choose something else, which is usually done via cookies.

[–] teyrnon@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

What about "persistent" cookies? I spent hours and was unable to find them, let alone remove them.

[–] fushuan@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

They are normal cookies with a longer "time to die". They are mixed with normal cookies.

[–] teyrnon@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago

I read they don't clear with clearing the cookies though? I want to make sure there aren't any and get rid of them, as well as any government or other malware while I am at it.

After 1/6 I was encouraged to join, I forget, Rumble I think, to see what they were saying, they tried to get me to agree to putting permanent cookies on my computer so I gave up, that was the first I heard about it.