I've found such methods pictured, but the limit of my experience results in random clicking to seeing what happens. These two examples seem to be about adblock rather than cookies - though i imagine they work by similar methods.
I've given up and run the extension 'I don't care about cookies' which auto accepts all. I'd obviously much prefer not to accept but I don't think it can be done and even if you pulled it off would soon have it break.
>>27962 How would this fix the problem, particularly as a full page render would negate DNS tricks?
>>27963 If you ever close your browser, could you set it to delete cookies on close? Or run it in sandboxie or the like to stop anything being persistent (except your deliberate saves)
>>27964 Well yeah, just do everything in private browser mode which is also how I dodge paywalls. I'd be hesitant about deleting cookies entirely or setting a whitelist due to effort involved.
>>27963 I've noticed that browsers have started auto-declining cookies, so perhaps you don't need the extension that accepts them. When I go to manually reject everything, the menus have changed so they're now rejected by default for a lot of websites. I assume the reasoning behind this is that everyone knows how awful cookies are, and so Google are devising a new way to monitor people instead.
Anyway, Google's new thing seems to be called FLoC, the Federated Learning of Cohorts, and obviously it's treacherous and Orwellian but so are cookies. If Google can make cookies obsolete, then they'll get positive PR, plus they have a monopoly on their new replacement.
I think a lot of the warnings you see are added by JavaScript, as well, so if you block all JavaScript you can get rid of a lot of paywalls and cookie warnings. Don't do it everywhere, though, because JavaScript is a whole new monopoly unto itself and blocking it will destroy a lot of websites.
>>27960 It gets worse. I've got no way of proving it because I don't want to allow everything, but I suspect that if you decline, you get re-prompted more often. I also notice that frequently if you open the "legitimate interest" section (which is a hilarious bit of fiction", even though it remembers that I've opted out of the consensual ones it's "forgotten" that I objected to the LI ones and I have to object again.
>>27966 >I think a lot of the warnings you see are added by JavaScript, as well, so if you block all JavaScript you can get rid of a lot of paywalls and cookie warnings. Don't do it everywhere, though, because JavaScript is a whole new monopoly unto itself and blocking it will destroy a lot of websites.
I keep telling people that JavaScript was a mistake.
>>27968 Javascript is a reasonable Scheme that is a victim of it's naming and syntax that mirrors Perl but worse in its life cycle. The proliferation of languages that offer type safety and saner syntax which compile down to JS is both proof of a lisp's adaptility and this particular implementation's failings. The post-hoc standardisation of the language based on how brosers implemented it, much like SGML and then XML parsing became a compatibilty issue. But it's here to stay, in it's multiple incarnations, and the dream of the universal VM is one step closer
