[ rss / options / help ]
post ]
[ b / iq / g / zoo ] [ e / news / lab ] [ v / nom / pol / eco / emo / 101 / shed ]
[ art / A / beat / boo / com / fat / job / lit / map / mph / poof / £$€¥ / spo / uhu / uni / x / y ] [ * | sfw | o ]
logo
technology

Return ]

Posting mode: Reply
Reply ]
Subject   (reply to 27960)
Message
File  []
close
Untitled.jpg
279602796027960
>> No. 27960 Anonymous
23rd August 2021
Monday 1:02 pm
27960 spacer
The filters are getting on my tits. How are they buypassed?
Expand all images.
>> No. 27961 Anonymous
23rd August 2021
Monday 1:04 pm
27961 spacer

sheet overlay.jpg
279612796127961
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.
>> No. 27962 Anonymous
23rd August 2021
Monday 2:56 pm
27962 spacer
>>27960
You need PiHole in your life.

https://pi-hole.net
>> No. 27963 Anonymous
23rd August 2021
Monday 4:27 pm
27963 spacer
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?
>> No. 27964 Anonymous
23rd August 2021
Monday 4:42 pm
27964 spacer
>>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)
>> No. 27965 Anonymous
23rd August 2021
Monday 5:08 pm
27965 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 27966 Anonymous
23rd August 2021
Monday 8:00 pm
27966 spacer
>>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.

https://www.techradar.com/news/google-is-trialling-its-first-alternative-to-tracking-cookies (this link also comes with a cookie warning, but if you don't click "Accept", you get taken to a menu where everything is rejected. However, many non-legitimate cookies are listed under "Legitimate Interest", so you'll need to Object All to truly reject them).

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.
>> No. 27967 Anonymous
23rd August 2021
Monday 9:31 pm
27967 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 27968 Anonymous
23rd August 2021
Monday 9:40 pm
27968 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 27969 Anonymous
23rd August 2021
Monday 11:21 pm
27969 spacer
>>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
>> No. 27970 Anonymous
23rd August 2021
Monday 11:24 pm
27970 spacer
>>27969
Or, in other words, JavaScript was a mistake.
>> No. 27971 Anonymous
23rd August 2021
Monday 11:37 pm
27971 spacer
>>27970
No argument there.

Return ]
whiteline

Delete Post []
Password