If I’m given the option, I always choose to reject all. I don’t know if the company behind it actually sees that or not, but it makes me feel better anyway.
If the site doesnt work without cookies depends on how much I want to browse I will accept knowing that my browser nukes everything or I will just not browse that site.
I use uMatrix to control exactly which cookies I accept, and only accept what I need.
Horrendous that this isn’t just a browser setting that can be applied universally. It’s 100% opt out every time.
https://github.com/cavi-au/Consent-O-Matic This can do it for you on most sites in most browsers.
That’s unnecessary. Not clicking anything is legally identical to opting out. So just install uBO and add the cookie list filter and block those annoying banners entirely.
You’re not wrong, but in my experience those lists cause some sites to not work anymore, the whole site will stay dark waiting for the cookie pop-up for example, or you can’t scroll. I still use uBO to block ads but Consent-O-Matic gives me a better experience on those sites.
Did you try to dismiss then manually or use the filter list?
Disabling uBO, dismissing the cookie pop-up and then re-enabling uBO usually works, but is a lot more work than just running Consent-O-Matic in the background.
I have it, and it does help, but it seems more often than not I still get a pop up for cookies.
You can report websites that it failed to act upon in the extension window
Ublock Origin has that option!
Where?
Settings, filter list, cookie notices
Well, it could have been but just like
robot.txteveryone ignored the Do-not-track Header in HTTP requests.That’s why I leave this off. Ironically the “Do Not Track” signal is used to more effectively track you.
tl;dr: “Reject All” will not break the site.
Also, technically there’s still a cookie after that:
The choice is recorded in a consent cookie
The article seems to ride on people’s anxiety about walls of text & choices presented by various cookie popups (not all of which even have a “Reject all” option) and IMHO isn’t quite clear enough that “Reject all” is the best option for 99% of use cases.
My flow is usually:
[when my cookie auto decline eztension doesn’t work]
- Look for Reject All button
- If no reject all button just open the site on an archive
I didn’t read the article but I’m pretty sure reject is the right answer.
Not according to Cookie Monster! He accepts all cookies. Always.
It’s good enough for me.
Touché
I always accept a cookie in real life, so why would I turn it down online?
I generally reject all. Then check for those sneaky sites that keep “legitimate interest” cookies ticked. I really doubt their idea of legitimate and my idea of legitimate align in any way.
It’s kinda funny that they’re “legitimate interest”, as that infers that the other ones aren’t legitmate.
I have no idea how an ad servicing company I have never heard of could have a legitimate interest in my online activities.
The same way certain people have a ‘legitimate’ interest in the jewelry in your house.
They have an interest, but it isn’t in your best interest.
My primary browser profile allows only whitelisted cookies. It also allows only whitelisted Javascript, so I don’t see the popups. If this breaks a site beyond usefulness, I seriously consider whether I really need that site (and if it falls into the <2% where the answer is “yes”, I either whitelist it or open it in the window for the other profile that functions on a blacklist basis).
That’s a lot more manual management than most people want to bother with, though.
My browser autodeletes cookies, and blocks cookies popups. Though I have set exceptions for sites, I log in to.
I always wonder if accepting all + blocking 3rd party cookies through browser settings is a sensible choice. One is left with 1st party cookies and a few browser have mechanisms in place to avoid these to be read by non-originating websites…
