this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2023
361 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
37745 readers
57 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I prefer an "accept all" approach, refusing all of them will lead to a degraded experience
Except abusers like Facebook who go in their dedicated isolated container
I reflexively deny all or as many cookies as I can, and I have never had a site not work; to my knowledge they all work perfectly.
In what sense? I find that websites work fine when I deny all and object all. Do you mean in terms of the experience of visiting that site that day being worse depending on the setting or do you mean more in terms of them earning less money leading to a worse experience over the long term?
Most sites don't even give you an option to reject the "functional" cookies. The only degradation of experience you'll get by "rejecting all" (which doesn't reject functional cookies) in most cases would be less relevant ads. Those who are privacy-minded generally prefer "reject all".
When mentioning data harvesting leviathans, Facebook is definitely on the list, but Google is the undisputed champ of surveillance capitalism. They’ve just got so many people addicted to their “free” services that most don’t want to mention it. I use Firefox mainly because it’s not Chromium based.