11

9 comments

[–] xyzzy 4 points (+4|-0)

I hope uBlock has catched up

[–] smallpond [OP] 0 points (+0|-0)

Many websites say they require first-party cookies for functionality. It might be asking too much from script-blocking programs to distinguish between fake and real first-party cookies.

[–] ScorpioGlitch 3 points (+3|-0)

Nearly all of them lie. I lock down my browser so tight that nearly nothing gets through. Most of the time I'm looking at photos of cats or reading an article. There's no need to set a cookie or run a script. If the simply has to set a cookie, it goes away as soon as the tab is closed. Additionally, I don't stay logged into any sites so no way to attach it to my account. And, finally, I only use certain sites on one computer/device. The others have them and their associated domains blocked at the hosts level (did you know facebook owns over 1000 domains?)

[–] CDanger 0 points (+0|-0)

Sounds like good opsec. Some good additional ideas to add.

[–] xyzzy 0 points (+0|-0)

Many websites say they require first-party cookies for functionality.

They don't just say that, there are cookies for a reason.

It might be asking too much from script-blocking programs to distinguish between fake and real first-party cookies.

No, it works already with pretend-on-site images, so why not cookies?

In the end it's all a cat and mouse game between the consumer and the spammer.