[HN Gopher] Firefox 91 introduces enhanced cookie clearing
___________________________________________________________________
Firefox 91 introduces enhanced cookie clearing
Author : arthuredelstein
Score : 569 points
Date : 2021-08-10 14:06 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (blog.mozilla.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (blog.mozilla.org)
| qwerty456127 wrote:
| > lets you fully erase your browser history for any website
|
| I just want a button to whitelist a domain and an option to
| automatically clear 100% of everything outside the whitelisted
| domains on every restart.
|
| And always clean the cache, perhaps even for whitelisted domains
| unless the system is on a metered/slow connection.
|
| Also, every website should always be opened in a separate
| "container" so cross-site tracking won't work.
|
| If Chrome did that today this would trigger a cascade of
| consequences. If Firefox did that today it would just improve
| Firefox popularity and cause no problems.
| tofflos wrote:
| > Now, if you click on Settings > Privacy and Security > Cookies
| and Site Data > Manage Data, Firefox no longer shows individual
| domains that store data. Instead, Firefox lists a cookie jar for
| each website you have visited.
|
| How is data from previous versions of Firefox handled? Will data
| from ad networks be listed as a "website you have visited", made
| unavailable for the embedding site's cookie jar, and re-fetched
| upon the next visit?
| SubiculumCode wrote:
| This is a good question. Its not an answer, but I think I'll
| clear everything upon installing this update.
| mousepilot wrote:
| Firefox 90+ doesn't even run for me. Bog standard ubuntu 20.04.
| These guys have really lost their mojo. I have to stick with the
| 7x lts versions.
| devwastaken wrote:
| The benefit of this also fixes bugs. Weather.com bugged on me
| because it uses supercookies, it would send me to the wrong link
| when I clicked in the search bar for my saved location. Had to
| manually go through and delete all the copies of the same cookies
| in local storage and other places they put it.
|
| The next step is for Firefox to finally adopt torbrowser, and
| natively support not allowing fingerprinting by default.
| newscracker wrote:
| This would be even more better with a "Forget this site" button
| that could be added to the toolbar (if the user wishes to).
| Clicking on it would clear everything for the site and close the
| tab.
|
| The nested menus to access it aren't very convenient.
|
| I do use CookieAutoDelete to handle this for closed tabs.
| potamic wrote:
| I tried CookieAutoDelete but it seems to be whitelist based
| only? How do I instead say block only these domains?
| throwaway64643 wrote:
| No, there are two types of rule in Cookie AutoDelete (CAD)
| that you have to read through their documentation to
| understand their function: Greylist and Whitelist. You have
| assign these domains to Greylist (whose filter setting has to
| be pre-configured first, namely you decide what to be
| kept/removed in greylist rule).
|
| I use in combination with Firefox containers feature Enable
| Automatic Cleaning of CAD, which deletes all cookies (as well
| domain related contents) except those in whitelist. That has
| saved me a lot of time in manual greylisting.
| singhkays wrote:
| I use this extension
|
| - https://github.com/blaise-io/forget-about-this-site
|
| - https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/forget-
| about-...
| srswtf123 wrote:
| Never heard of Cookie AutoDelete, many thanks from me as well.
|
| What I really want is for all cookies to be deleted when the
| browser exits, except for the sites assigned to the containers
| I've created.
|
| I'll have to see if this is possible in Cookie AutoDelete --
| looks like it might be. Does anyone have any suggestions?
| throwaway64643 wrote:
| > What I really want is for all cookies to be deleted when
| the browser exits, except for the sites assigned to the
| containers I've created.
|
| Then Cookie AutoDelete (CAD) is exact what you'd want.
| Firefox has a setting option that deletes all cookies except
| exception after the browser is closed. But in my opinion,
| that function is too limited. CAD filters domains on
| container level, while Firefox's doesn't. CAD also offers
| regex matching for domains, which is really useful. My
| favorite feature is greylisting everything in Default
| Firefox's container (using * regex for greylist).
|
| CAD is compatible and best used with Firefox's Multi-Account
| Container.
|
| It will take a bit to learn how it works though.
| amphitheatre wrote:
| Containers are such a great concepts that I wish was built
| upon slightly more in the browser so that we can achieve
| things like that.
| yason wrote:
| _What I really want is for all cookies to be deleted when the
| browser exits, except for the sites assigned to the
| containers I 've created._
|
| At least Firefox 90.x has a checkbox "Delete cookies and site
| data when Firefox is closed" in the privacy section, along
| with a button to "Manage exceptions..."
| dylan604 wrote:
| I would much rather this be when tab close rather than
| browser close.
|
| I rarely close my browser except for updates, or when I'm
| spe cifcally taking advantage of delete on exit. However,
| delete on tab close would be dreamy.
|
| I don't really want it to be an extension. I don't like the
| power given to extensions, so the less I use the better.
| Sorry decent extension devs, for me the bad guys have
| tarnished the trust to just not want to use any.
| albanberg wrote:
| Go into firefox preferences > privacy/security There's a
| checkbox a bit down the page that says: Delete cookies and
| site data when Firefox is closed
| bennyp101 wrote:
| This is what I do, I have it clear cookies every 60 seconds,
| but it keeps my container cookies. Just set the site to
| 'always open in ..' the specific container, and all is good.
|
| In settings for CAD, enable container support
|
| https://github.com/Cookie-AutoDelete/Cookie-
| AutoDelete/wiki/...
| albanberg wrote:
| This! I want a button that deletes everything from the current
| tab. One click, not two clicks and a right click. Also needs a
| keyboard shortcut.
| C19is20 wrote:
| Naaah, one big button.
| [deleted]
| magicalhippo wrote:
| I'd like a "remember this site" instead.
| teddyfrozevelt wrote:
| You can mostly do this through the lock icon with the "Clear
| cookies and site data" button.
| jaytaylor wrote:
| Never knew about this functionality, thanks for sharing!
|
| It even appears to exist and work in Chrome.
| sovnade wrote:
| Ooh I like this idea. Going to look into CookiesAutoDelete.
| Thank you!
| wackget wrote:
| How is this any different from disabling third-party cookies and
| clearing website cookies manually?
| _trampeltier wrote:
| I wish they would build a desktop version of Firefix Focus
| (Android). One big big button and everything is throwed away.
| tsjq wrote:
| Ctrl+Shift+Delete does that ?
| [deleted]
| code_duck wrote:
| It sure takes a lot of work from the rest of the community to
| reduce google and facebook's ability to keep us under constant
| surveillance. My personal relationship with facebook feels fully
| abusive at this point.
| spuz wrote:
| This version of Firefox is also the first major piece of software
| to be translated into Scots - a language spoken / understood by
| 1.3m people in Scotland.
|
| My previous company worked on the translation and they told me
| they had fun trying to come up with suitable equivalents for
| technical words such as "minimise" and "maximise".
|
| https://blog.mozilla.org/security/2021/08/10/firefox-91-intr...
|
| https://www.thenational.scot/news/19494171.major-web-browser...
| dmurray wrote:
| Scots is a dialect of English. So finding idiomatic Scots
| expressions for technical terms, instead of importing them
| verbatim, really is about "having fun" rather than achieving
| any extra clarity in communication.
| dspillett wrote:
| _> Scots is a dialect of English._
|
| You are probably thinking of Scottish English or Scots
| English, which is essentially English of some words and
| phrases from Scots and a very strong accent.
|
| Scots proper is as much a language of its own as English is.
|
| Scots and what we now think of as English arguably have a
| similar age and a lot of shared heritage, though obviously
| given how much separation, invading and other reasons for
| variation & remixing of languages has gone on over time, it
| is tricky to tie down completely what came from where when.
| daleharvey wrote:
| Describing Scots as a dialect of English is really about a
| political affiliation than any interest in linguistics,
| Plenty of people regard Scots as a distinct language.
|
| (Scottish Firefox developer)
| tomrod wrote:
| Neat!
| dmurray wrote:
| I don't have any affiliation with England, or the US, and
| would also consider "English is a dialect of Scots". (More
| than one person in Galicia described the Portuguese
| language to me in the analogous way...).
|
| Still, I think it's silly to go all kayfabe here and treat
| the languages as completely distinct. I have similar
| thoughts on Slovenian and Slovakian and Flemish.
| conradev wrote:
| I like how Wikipedia put it:
|
| "Where on this continuum English-influenced Scots becomes
| Scots-influenced English is difficult to determine."
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scots_language#Decline_in_s
| tat...
| Fomorian wrote:
| People that have a vested interest in the suppression of
| the indigenous Goidelic language of Scotland - on both
| sides of the England-Scotland border - will always insist
| upon the full-fledged distinctive language status of
| Scottish English.
| dmurray wrote:
| On both sides of the Irish Sea, too. Hard-line unionists
| in the north of Ireland have been pushing "Ulster Scots"
| in the last ten years or so. Not out of any real cultural
| association with the language or with Scotland - they
| overwhelmingly identify as "British" - but as a tool to
| diminish Irish-language initiatives. Every time there's a
| measure proposed to support Irish, they can propose an
| equal amount of funds for Ulster Scots.
|
| It actually helps them to make the language seem as
| ridiculous as possible, since the real goal isn't to
| promote their language but to mock another.
| daleharvey wrote:
| Unless I misunderstood your point, that is a strange take
| that isn't close to being true. There is a large overlap
| of Scottish language enthusiasts who are advocates of
| both Scots as a distinct language and Gaelic, the
| demographic of the recent surge of popularity of Gaelic
| on duolingo are clear.
|
| The overlap between political commentators who both
| insist that Scots is "just a dialect" and that Gaelic is
| a dying language that we should discourage is also very
| apparent.
|
| The subtext is pro indy people are generally pro Scots
| and Gaelic, and unionists are against both of course.
| donbrae wrote:
| Scottish English != Scots. The former is just English
| with a Scottish accent; the latter is a closely related
| (to English) but distinct language with its own
| vocabulary and grammar, not dissimilar to the
| relationship between Norwegian and Danish, or Czech and
| Slovak.
|
| Scots being a language has nothing to do with suppressing
| Gaelic. Generally people who hate Gaelic hate Scots
| equally.
| Fomorian wrote:
| The fact that you and other anglophones call the
| indigenous Scottish variety of Gaelic simply "Gaelic" is
| a pretty good example of why I continue to be very, very
| suspicious of those who insist upon "Scots" being a
| language fully distinct from English, and not a dialect -
| and insist upon calling it by that name.
|
| The Irish and Scottish varieties of the Goidelic language
| family have far less mutual intelligibility than the
| English and Scottish varieties of English. Scottish
| English forms a pretty smooth continuum between "English
| with a Scottish accent", and what you'd call "Scots" or
| "Lallans".
|
| But Scottish Gaelic is the tongue that gets the downgrade
| to "Gaelic", despite it being simply called Scottish for
| the vast majority of Scotland's history. Despite it
| literally being the reason for the country's name.
|
| Scottish English was literally only called "Scottis"
| instead of "Inglis" as the Lowlanders gained a greater
| sense of national identity and distinctiveness from the
| English further south. At that point, funnily enough, the
| Goidelic spoken in Scotland ceased to be called
| "Scottis", and became "Erse" instead.
|
| It is quite impossible to separate this insistence on
| distinguishing "Scots" from English, from suppressive
| efforts towards the indigenous Gaelic language of
| Scotland. You can see the exact same dynamic in Northern
| Ireland, where unionists play up the supposed variety of
| "Scots" spoken by the Ulster planters and their
| descendants as a fully distinctive language equal to
| Irish, as a means to delegitimize Irish as the primary
| indigenous language of the land.
|
| I don't say all of this from a place of antipathy towards
| the speakers of "Scots". One need only read some Burns to
| see that the variety of English spoken in Scotland
| diverged heavily from the varieties spoken further south,
| and that diversity is beautiful. But the label is
| politically charged, and fundamentally it is a weapon -
| and always has been - pointed in the direction of Gaelic-
| speakers.
| cool_dude85 wrote:
| What language is Slovenian a "dialect of" in your
| thoughts?
| dmurray wrote:
| Yugoslavian.
| dfawcus wrote:
| "Scots is a dialect of English."
|
| Ahh whisht man.
|
| :-)
|
| That said, I find I often have to mentally pronounce the
| various written forms in order to be able to understand them.
| lvxferre wrote:
| >Scots is a dialect of English
|
| It's up to the linguistic community to decide that, if their
| variety should be considered a "dialect" of something else or
| a "language" on its own. Linguists already gave up that
| question, it's more useful to talk about varieties anyway.
|
| And it's the same deal with Galician versus Portuguese, with
| a difference - "Scots is a dialect of English" threatens
| Scots, but "Portuguese is a dialect of Galician" doesn't
| threaten Portuguese (it threatens Galician instead).
| gsnedders wrote:
| Or whether Danish and Norwegian and Swedish are the same
| language, but different dialects.
|
| Depending on how you define "dialect" or "language", they
| may or may not be.
|
| To quote the obligatory quip: "A language is a dialect with
| an army and navy".
| dfawcus wrote:
| "Or whether Danish and Norwegian and Swedish are the same
| language, but different dialects."
|
| I recently watched the Swedish production "Blue Eyes"
| (with English subtitles), and was amused at the amount of
| speech which struck me as being 'English with an odd
| regional dialect'. Usually these were simple 'core
| language' statements and / or imperatives.
|
| I guess that is more the lasting Viking and Dane Law
| impact upon the English, than English feeding in modern
| Swedish.
| lvxferre wrote:
| >I guess that is more the lasting Viking and Dane Law
| impact upon the English, than English feeding in modern
| Swedish.
|
| It might be the result of common Germanic grounds, not
| necessarily lateral influence. I got the same when
| learning German - sentences like "das Haus ist rot" or
| "ich trinke Wein" are surprisingly easy to catch up from
| English. And after some time you start noticing patterns,
| that help you further.
| WorldMaker wrote:
| Fun increasingly off topic facts: a lot of those patterns
| were originally noticed and compiled by the Brothers
| Grimm (noted assemblers of fairy tales from across
| Germany) as they got caught up in the pattern of
| differences between Low German (the language families
| that include Dutch and Old English) and High German (what
| today we think of as the German language) as they
| assembled all the local fairy tales they could find. High
| German went through a consonant shift [1] that Low German
| did not. A lot of the pattern you can see when learning
| German and knowing a lot of older words in English is
| applying exactly that consonant shift, plus or minus
| English's own interesting Great Vowel Shift [2] and large
| influx of latinate words from French and other languages.
| (The Brothers Grimm even traced some of the shifts as far
| back as they could to proto-Germanic, making them some of
| the first explorers of Proto-Indo-European [PIE] sound
| shifts and Grimm's Law is named after them. [3])
|
| The evolution of languages is fascinating. Circling
| somewhat back to the topic above: the difference between
| "dialect" and "language" is a complex subject just as
| most "speciation" debates in other evolutionary fields
| have a lot of hidden complexity. "Language" versus
| "dialect" versus "creole" doesn't have a lot of simple
| answers though historically that joke that "a language is
| a dialect with an army" tracks more than it doesn't which
| is why it is a good joke.
|
| [1]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_German_consonant_shift
|
| [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Vowel_Shift
|
| [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grimm%27s_law
| jwatt wrote:
| Two of my favorite videos on "Scots":
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oH8pxfqgSBQ
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6RGgFoiNEo
| [deleted]
| guerrilla wrote:
| > Scots is a dialect of English
|
| Beware fighting words
|
| > Modern Scots is a sister language of Modern English, as the
| two diverged independently from the same source: Early Middle
| English (1150-1300)
|
| > As there are no universally accepted criteria for
| distinguishing a language from a dialect, scholars and other
| interested parties often disagree about the linguistic,
| historical and social status of Scots, particularly its
| relationship to English. Although a number of paradigms for
| distinguishing between languages and dialects exist, they
| often render contradictory results. Broad Scots is at one end
| of a bipolar linguistic continuum, with Scottish Standard
| English at the other. Scots is sometimes regarded as a
| variety of English, though it has its own distinct dialects;
| other scholars treat Scots as a distinct Germanic language,
| in the way that Norwegian is closely linked to but distinct
| from Danish.
| dkdbejwi383 wrote:
| So does "enhanced cookie clearing" become "pure biscuit
| clearin'"?
| ricardo81 wrote:
| chuck aw them biscuity hings right oot.
| deanclatworthy wrote:
| I'm English, and lived in England for 23 years. I have never
| ever heard of Scots before.
| jahnu wrote:
| That's really a pity. In England there is a terrible lack of
| knowledge of the other parts of the Union. It's because of
| decisions like the not quite full on Scots but truly
| brilliant Limmy's Show only being shown on BBC Scotland.
| lentil wrote:
| As a Scot, I find that a bit sad. We're really not that far
| away!
|
| Does that also mean you never learned about Rabbie Burns in
| school?
| deanclatworthy wrote:
| I know his name and who he is. I vaguely recall some of his
| poems being recited at school.
|
| I like to think I'm a man of the world. I watch a lot of
| Scottish TV (Burnistoun etc.), have done the NC500 and have
| plenty of Scottish friends. Of course there is dialect
| there, but I didn't realise this was a "thing".
| macfaran wrote:
| There's a whole cannon of literature written in it
| (Dunbar, Ferguson, Ramsay, MacDairmid, Henryson, Kelman,
| Leonard, Souter etc.) as well as a bit of a discussion
| whether the literature reflected or embellished Scots
| (Burns and MacDairmid both made up words for example).
| When people think of Scots they usually think of the
| Glaswegian dialect of English you commonly hear on the
| TV. But there's still a whole set of words in common use
| today around Scotland. You hear it more in rural areas
| and less in the central belt.
| isbvhodnvemrwvn wrote:
| Hopefully not by the same guy who ran the scots version of
| wikipedia.
| ladon86 wrote:
| Don't leave us hanging, what words did they come up with?
| spuz wrote:
| 'mak muckle' and 'mak tottie'
| dheera wrote:
| I suppose cookies become biscuits?
| clydethefrog wrote:
| I hope they had a bit less fun than the American teenager that
| edited most of the Scottish Wikipedia pages with nonsense
| Scottish!
|
| https://slate.com/technology/2020/09/scots-wikipedia-languag...
| [deleted]
| bennysomething wrote:
| Lived in Scotland for 20 years, really doubt 1.3m people even
| know what Scots is let alone speak it.
| spuz wrote:
| Oops, sorry I meant to double check that and forgot. It's
| apparently 1.9m people.
| sdflhasjd wrote:
| To be fair, that number is self-reported and combines
| "speak, read, write or understand Scots".
|
| I'm not Scottish myself, but even I could claim to
| _somewhat_ understand Scots. I wouldn 't say so on a
| census, but I'm sure there are plenty that would.
| _Especially_ when there 's some national pride at stake.
| lucideer wrote:
| It's a self-reported stat (census answers), so that many of
| people at the very least believe they know what Scots is (as
| they responded that they do speak it).
|
| I did find it striking that the same stat for Gaelic was just
| over 50k in contrast: while I know the level of Gaelic spoken
| in Scotland is extremely low, it's at least a better known
| language internationally than Scots is, so I would've
| expected it to be the more spoken of the two.
| GordonS wrote:
| I lot of people speak many Scots words day to day, but won't
| necessarily consider themselves to "speak Scots", or even
| realise that the dialect they speak has an official name.
|
| To test this theory, I just asked my mother in law (who is
| from the central belt) about Scots, and she replied, quite
| seriously: "Whits that? I dinnae ken whit that is, I spik
| proper!"
|
| (I'm Scottish, from the North East)
| hhlbf wrote:
| I assume this is the same as the figures of how many people
| speak Catalan.
| occamrazor wrote:
| Not at all Catalan is the first language for a large part
| of the population. In Scotland, even for most native Scots
| speakers English is in fact the first language.
| kunagi7 wrote:
| Well, this example is quite curious. Catalan is
| understood and used by most of the people who live in
| Catalan speaking regions, but it isn't the first language
| of most of the people who live there. Pretty much the 95%
| are bilingual (Catalan and Spanish). In fact, more people
| speak Spanish as their mother tongue than Catalan but
| they switch between them when required.
|
| Maybe the Scots situation is similar, people learn and
| use both languages and change to the one they feel most
| comfortable with.
| donbrae wrote:
| That is simply incorrect. I personally know people whose
| first language is Scots. It was the first language they
| learned and they use it every day.
| HPsquared wrote:
| Most people know a little bit. That's the thing with Scots,
| it's highly miscible with English so it's hard to tell where
| one ends and the other begins.
| Fomorian wrote:
| Because it's basically a dialect OF English.
|
| In fact, literally the only reason it's called "Scots" and
| not "Inglis", as it originally was, is as the Lowlander
| Scots gradually developed a sense of national identity
| separate from the English, they decided that they wanted a
| national label of their own. But of course, they still
| didn't want to share a national label or identity with the
| hated native Celtic-speaking population.
|
| And so "Inglis" became "Scots", while "Scottis" - the
| native Goidelic language - became "Erse", or Irish.
|
| The whole thing is insidious.
| jrochkind1 wrote:
| It is not unique to this case that how we divide and
| understand langauges is tied up with politics of
| nationalism. Have been since the start of modern
| nationalism. What we call "Italian" could be called
| "Florentine", it wasn't spoken in all of "Italy" until it
| became a political project to make it so...
|
| And...
|
| > Until about 1800, Standard German was almost entirely a
| written language. People in Northern Germany who spoke
| mainly Low Saxon languages very different from Standard
| German then learned it more or less as a foreign
| language. However, later the Northern pronunciation (of
| Standard German) was considered standard[4][5] and spread
| southward; in some regions (such as around Hanover), the
| local dialect has completely died out with the exception
| of small communities of Low German speakers.
|
| > It is thus the spread of Standard German as a language
| taught at school that defines the German Sprachraum,
| which was thus a political decision rather than a direct
| consequence of dialect geography. That allowed areas with
| dialects with very little mutual comprehensibility to
| participate in the same cultural sphere. Currently, local
| dialects are used mainly in informal situations or at
| home and also in dialect literature, but more recently, a
| resurgence of German dialects has appeared in mass media
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_German
| HPsquared wrote:
| Perhaps this could be resolved in a similar way, by
| calling the standard language "British".
| jrochkind1 wrote:
| What is the thing you think needs to be "resolved"? If
| it's dispute over the names of languages, I'm not sure
| that was the nature of any dispute in these 19th century
| examples, or if it did, if it was ever "resolved" by
| anything except power to impose it.
| donbrae wrote:
| As a Scots speaker I would object vehemently to my
| language being classified as a dialect of 'British', or
| any other language for that matter.
| dfawcus wrote:
| "Because it's basically a dialect OF English."
|
| I'd suggest not, it is a peer / sibling of Modern
| English, and descended in parallel. Northumbrian Old
| English eventually became Scots, due to the 'English of
| the Lothians' using it (and eventually 'Inglis').
|
| Go read some older Scots from around 1600, you'll
| probably have a harder time of it than the same age
| English because they were and are distinct. Modern media,
| a lack of formalised spelling, and simple economics post
| union has probably been the major factor in its slow
| decline towards death.
|
| So Scots (in its various dialects) and
| Geordie/Mackem/Northumbrian are I'd suggest dialects of
| the same language, not being English. Speakers code
| switch between them.
|
| You've also missed out the other language, which was
| spoken in the 'Old North' and the Kingdom of Strathclyde
| - i.e. the Brythonic speakers.
| throwaway2048 wrote:
| Making hard and fast statements about a topic even
| lifelong experts don't feel comfortable making a
| conclusion about is unwise.
|
| There is no meaningful line between a language and a
| dialect, and it mostly comes down to politics.
| howolduis wrote:
| this version o' firefox is an' a' th' foremaist major piece o'
| software tae be translated intae scots - a leid spoken /
| understaun by 1.3m fowk in bonnie scotland.
|
| Mah afore company worked oan th' translation 'n' thay tellt me
| thay hud fin trying tae come up wi' suitable equivalents fur
| tekky wurds sic as 'minimise' 'n' 'maximise'.
| walteweiss wrote:
| Now I want to study this wonderful language! Any books I can
| (try to) read in Scots? Serious question! :)
| eigart wrote:
| Not a book, but https://twitter.com/Lenniesaurus?s=20 does
| a fun "scots word of the day" series!
| yorwba wrote:
| How about some 19th-century songs?
| https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Book_of_Scottish_Song
| JohnicBoom wrote:
| I've heard the Scots version of Harry Potter and the
| Philosopher's Stone is really well done, and is fun to read
| even as an American. That said, I have no experience at all
| with Scots, so my opinion should have very little weight!
| mgkimsal wrote:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qeWbC7XtO0
|
| See how much of that series you can get through. :)
| donbrae wrote:
| Not a book but I run a blog written in Scots:
| https://makforrit.scot.
| ricardo81 wrote:
| As a Southern Scot I'm familiar with muckle, many a mickle
| makes a muckle.
|
| I believe the CSS equivalent of a pixel in browser rendering
| here is a "baw hair".
| jefftk wrote:
| Did you mean to post this on the general Firefox 91 thread?
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28128305
| spuz wrote:
| I would have if I had seen it!
| 1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote:
| There is a simple way to do cookie clearing outside the browser.
| Insert the header Clear-Site-Data^1 into the HTTP response via
| local proxy^2:
|
| 1. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-
| US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/Cl...
|
| 2. http-response add-header Clear-Site-Data "*"
| BuckRogers wrote:
| Typing this from Firefox, been typing from Firefox since 2002.
| Never moved to Chrome. That's probably a small group of people
| for sure, and I'm actually happy with this update, and the
| changes Mozilla has been making. I do think, completely against
| the grain of most Firefox fans, that they should've moved to
| Chromium ages ago. That would solve the reason people are
| actually leaving.. issues with Google properties. I have my
| mother in-law on Edge because there's less issues when she jumps
| on her karate class using Google Meets. There should be someone
| out there to battle Blink, I suppose, but without user share at
| all, how do you hold any weight anyway? It really doesn't make
| sense, the argument people make.
|
| It's usershare first, then you have weight to put towards web
| standards. And I'm afraid Mozilla doesn't have the resources and
| willpower to fight that battle anyway. If I'm calling shots with
| Firefox I'm moving to Chromium immediately and then focusing on
| UI and privacy features. It's probably too late to make that
| change though. I just read Firefox lost 50 million monthly users
| in the last two years.
|
| It's a little sad, there is room in the market for a 3rd party,
| power user's browser but it's obvious as can be that whatever
| browser that will be- it will be on Chromium and it won't be
| Firefox.
| djhworld wrote:
| I'm a heavy user of the "firefox containers" feature, where I try
| to isolate the social media sites to their own containers
| (twitter, facebook etc) and also one for reddit. I've also got
| one for google products as well as I try to use DDG most of the
| time.
|
| Anyway I wish FF had a feature that broke down the cookies PER
| container, so I could purge any ones that might have snuck in due
| to a lapse in my judgement, e.g. if I see facebook cookies in my
| "twitter" container then I'd like to purge them for that
| particular container only.
|
| FF only allows you to do a global purge.
|
| EDIT: I can see this bug was raised 3 years ago which suggests it
| _used_ to be a feature that got removed, but sounds like it was
| never put back in/low priority/WONTFIX.
| https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1480175
| viktorcode wrote:
| Is it any different from "manage website data" in Safari? I use
| it to make sites forget about me.
| oakfr wrote:
| Nice feature, although I wish firefox could fix the other side of
| the cookie nightmare: auto-fill the (now humongous) forms we need
| to fill in for our cookie settings, for _each_ website. I feel
| like I am applying for a mortgage a few times a day now.
| llimos wrote:
| I think by law they have to make it as easy to opt out as to
| opt in. So for almost all the websites I see, clicking 'More
| options' defaults to everything off. I now do 'More options' >
| 'Save' on autopilot (and if one or two bad 'uns slip through
| the net, so be it - life's too short).
| kfoley wrote:
| The only problem is that there is often an option to allow
| cookies to "store site preferences" or something along those
| lines.
|
| My experience is this also includes your cookie preferences
| which means if you don't enable that single option, you'll
| have to go through the steps to disable cookies pretty much
| every time you visit.
| llimos wrote:
| The real scandal is when 'More options' takes 20 seconds to
| load - clearly deliberate but with just enough plausible
| deniability.
| sleavey wrote:
| I just open the DOM editor and remove the popover if it takes
| more than a second to find the reject all button.
| aembleton wrote:
| block it in uBO so you don't have to see it again.
| tsjq wrote:
| I use the Kill-Sticky bookmarklet for this and all other
| intrusive stickies, floaties, etc
| https://alisdair.mcdiarmid.org/kill-sticky-headers/
| idoubtit wrote:
| If you disallow third party cookies, then there is no use for
| this _per website cookie jar_. I 've browsed the web like this
| for decades (since Opera 9, IIRC), and I had problems with at
| most 5 websites. YMMV, of course.
|
| In my opinion, the simplest way to deal with cookies is to
| disallow third party, and to keep a white list of authorized
| websites. Cookies outside this white list should be deleted
| manually or automatically after a few hours. Extensions for this
| probably exist, but I've had bad experiences with extensions
| breaking or becoming intrusive, so I made my own where I hard
| coded the domains that I want to keep.
| lazyweb wrote:
| I'm using FF almost exactly the same way as you describe, and
| have found the "Forget Me Not" addon to be great. Not allowing
| 3rd party cookies at all via browser settings, then the addon
| deletes all cookies for a specific site after closing the tab.
| Having a whitelist with 5-6 sites where I keep cookies forever.
| rcMgD2BwE72F wrote:
| https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/cookie-autode...
| is great
| jansan wrote:
| Firefox does not start for me anymore. Gives a blank error
| message and the content area is blank. That's finally it, I
| guess.
| drdebug wrote:
| Great, this is really going in the right direction! So far I had
| been using different firefox startup profiles for different
| activities to emulate this behaviour (works even for extensions).
| beermonster wrote:
| Wonder if this means cookie-autodelete[1] is now redundant?
|
| https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/cookie-autode...
| rcMgD2BwE72F wrote:
| No but it may be complement the extension. You may ask the
| question at https://github.com/Cookie-AutoDelete/Cookie-
| AutoDelete/discu...
| jefftk wrote:
| Cookie AutoDelete deletes cookies when you close the tab,
| right? That's pretty different from this feature, where cookies
| are only deleted when you ask the browser to delete them.
| beermonster wrote:
| When a tab closes, any cookies not being used are
| automatically deleted. You can whitelist the ones you trust
| and it has support for Container Tabs.
| [deleted]
| nimbius wrote:
| >cookie handling that lets you fully erase your browser history
| for any website.
|
| how about allowing me to whitelist and blacklist cookies from a
| button? why did that feature have to disappear in the first
| place? instead I now have a menu in about:preferences#privacy
| that requires a full URL to be entered, added with a button, then
| confirmed with "save" in what appears to be an effort to get me
| to just accept cookies.
|
| whats worse is if i switch between allow cookies, and then back
| to custom, my selection to block all cookies isnt honored at all.
| instead i get put back into 'block third party cookies.'
|
| finally theres the misery of including blocked sites in the
| 'preferences' you can delete as part of your browser history,
| which seems like an effort to further reduce my predictable and
| consistent ability to block cookies altogether.
| pomian wrote:
| Great. Finally. I always wondered why some sites reopen on data
| relevant to a past date, (weather web site for example), even
| though all history, cookies, site data, etc, has been set to
| clear upon shut down. Which always makes you wonder what else is
| stored.
| jefftk wrote:
| _Total Cookie Protection, built into Firefox, makes sure that
| facebook.com can't use cookies to track you across websites. It
| does this by partitioning data storage into one cookie jar per
| website, rather than using one big jar for all of facebook.com's
| storage. With Enhanced Cookie Clearing, if you clear site data
| for comfypants.com, the entire cookie jar is emptied, including
| any data facebook.com set while embedded in comfypants.com._
|
| This seems exactly right: now that we have partitioned cookies,
| cookie clearing should clear cookies for the whole partition.
| jrochkind1 wrote:
| Should also make it easier to defeat some paywalls by clearing
| cookies just for that site.
| faichai wrote:
| It's insane that this hasn't been the default all along across
| all browsers.
|
| Just shows how Google et al, strive to safeguard and profit
| from the status quo, at the expense of every internet user.
| SilasX wrote:
| As others noted, I'm not sure there's a profit motive to
| blame here, but yeah it feels like browsers are constantly
| playing catch-up, indicated by ever-stronger words for the
| features, rather than switch to a better-engineered, more
| robust model -- reminds me of PHP's treadmill of "no-really-
| totes-secure-this-time-sql-call".
| crazygringo wrote:
| It's ridiculous to suggest that this was somehow all
| nefariously intended by Google et al. How do you then explain
| that's what _Firefox_ has done all the way up until now?
|
| No -- it's just how cookies were meant to work from the
| start, the most obvious implementation before the
| privacy/security/tracking implications got worked out, which
| has taken many years.
|
| And Google's working to make similar improvements to Chrome:
|
| https://blog.chromium.org/2020/01/building-more-private-
| web-...
|
| So not "insane" at all. To the contrary, it was entirely
| reasonable at the beginning, and now we see browsers
| reasonably addressing the problems that have arisen.
| o8r3oFTZPE wrote:
| People trust Google. There is no reason not to trust this
| company.
|
| Mozilla gets 90+% of it operating budget via a deal with
| Google, but Firefox developement is not influenced at all
| by Chrome. Totally independent.
|
| Big Tech exists for users, not advertisers.
|
| Google will "build a more private web", just for users.
| Sorry advertisers. :(
| SilasX wrote:
| Couldn't a smart person have figured out exactly how that
| cookie model could be abused like, within days of it
| existing? Was it really something that only got figured out
| with time?
| ElderKorihor wrote:
| You have hindsight.
|
| In the early days, the internet was seen as a massively
| playfield-leveling and decentralizing force ("the net
| interprets censorship as damage and routes around it"),
| not a massively centralizing one (Facebook is the world's
| only newspaper).
|
| In a model where everything is decentralized and leveled
| , no player is big enough to worry about.
| joe_the_user wrote:
| Sure, the realization might taken a decade but the change
| took two decades at least. So it seems a little late.
| tuatoru wrote:
| A smart person _could_ have figured it out, but it was
| extremely unlikely.
|
| The economics sub-discipline of economic geography was
| being developed at about the same time as Eternal
| September.
|
| The key insight (one of the key insights) from that
| research is that as the absolute cost of transport goes
| down, previously insignificant differences in cost become
| important. This leads to to the development of "hubs" -
| centralization.
|
| (Here we're talking about information transport, and the
| cost being time per bit.)
|
| But as you say, at the time the tech world could never
| have believed that centralization was the default
| expectation, nor designed things to compensate.
| teawrecks wrote:
| > How do you then explain that's what Firefox has done all
| the way up until now?
|
| Google is historically the largest financial contributor to
| Mozilla (paying for spot as default search engine) and thus
| has always had leverage on what they do with FF.
|
| There were a few years there where Moz flexed on google by
| making Yahoo the default, but then switched back to Google
| last year. My guess is they had to show google they were
| willing to go elsewhere in order to regain some of their
| autonomy, which is why it's only in the last couple of
| years that FF has been willing to add default customer
| privacy features despite directly hurting FB/Google's
| ability to track users.
| notinsaneatall wrote:
| > How do you then explain that's what Firefox has done all
| the way up until now?
|
| The fact that for a long, long time the vast majority of
| Firefox's income has come from search engine partnerships,
| a category google dominates?
|
| Also: Firefox has been rather poor about user privacy.
| Integrating third party stuff that's difficult to remove,
| like Pocket, for example.
|
| There was the whole "Looking Glass" debacle where they
| dropped in a Mr. Robot promotional plugin into Firefox
| completely silently.
|
| When someone posted in bugzilla about it, the project
| manager for the plugin made the thread employee-only. It
| was then changed back to public briefly, before
| disappearing for good, reportedly being locked so even
| employees can't see it:
|
| https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1424977#c21
|
| Ask yourself: "why is a bug files about a promotional
| plugin so secretive that not even employees can view it?"
|
| BTW: Guess where that project manager used to work before
| she worked at Mozilla? Answer: an online advertising and
| analytics firm (according to her LinkedIn profile at the
| time.)
| jimmaswell wrote:
| The world kept turning all these years before people got
| unreasonably paranoid about cookies and ad networks. I think
| it's all pointless theater. I wish Mozilla would focus more
| on browser customizability and other extension powers like we
| used to have with XUL and bringing the mobile browser up to
| speed instead. I couldn't care less about a Facebook tracking
| cookie.
| amenod wrote:
| I agree with the mobile browser (the only recent change
| they made, afaics, was to artificially disable most of the
| extensions and to make tab switching worse), however it is
| not just about ad networks that people are paranoid about.
| Tracking is pervasive and there are many players which know
| way too much about what users are doing on the net.
|
| I don't even care if they track me - what I care about is
| that they track mostly everybody. Such power should not be
| underestimated.
| jimmaswell wrote:
| Law enforcement is exempt from GDPR and other online
| privacy acts and we all know how much intelligence
| agencies know. The people who it matters if they track
| you are still tracking you. All that changed is it's
| harder to make money from ads and it's more expensive and
| dangerous to run your own web service.
| mnot wrote:
| Not true; a substantial part of the Schrems II decision
| was about how the GDPR applies not only to law
| enforcement, but also national security surveillance. See
| eg 'European Essential Guarantees.'
| sp332 wrote:
| This is two huge changes away from how every browser
| historically stored and cleared cookies, including old Opera,
| IE, Firefox, Safari, everybody.
| jefftk wrote:
| _> It's insane that this hasn't been the default all along
| across all browsers_
|
| Historically cookies weren't partitioned by site. So if you
| went to clear the cookies for https://publisher.example, then
| the browser wouldn't know whether to also clear cookies for
| https://other.example.
|
| (Cookies are still not partitioned by default in Firefox; it
| requires turning on Total Cookie Protection)
| nashashmi wrote:
| Damn it Firefox. Your cookie protection system is too damn
| interrupting and does not provide good enough protection.
|
| I don't want a security "profile" because I don't fit in to
| whatever few boxes you have setup. Or maybe I just don't trust
| what you do behind that security profile setup.
|
| I want my own granular cookie tracking. Steal it from chrome if
| you have to. It is the best thing since sliced bread.
|
| I want a list of every cookie I have got. Just like IE used to
| do. Just chrome does today.
|
| I want to set in the smallest detail which cookies are allowed,
| which are blocked, and which only last until I close session.
|
| I have umatrix and ublock with only my personal filter list. It
| is not good enough. I want something much like chrome.
| mikro2nd wrote:
| "Cookie Autodelete" plugin might be what you want, then. Sadly
| I don't know what "like chrome" means, so don't know if the
| plugin's functionality is more-or-less equivalent, since I
| never use Chrome.
| davzie wrote:
| Calm down Veruca Salt
| llimos wrote:
| The site they choose to demo forgetting about is HN?!
| taftster wrote:
| Yeah, I'm guessing this was a deliberate joke for us here. The
| author knew this would be closely read and critiqued by the
| folks here. I'm sure s/he was waiting for exactly your comment
| on the HN thread.
| SubiculumCode wrote:
| Most importantly, /. was not included as a visited site.
| pixxel wrote:
| I'm such a cynical bastard. My mind says, what took so long to
| tackle cookies, FLoC?
| michaelt wrote:
| Firefox doesn't have enough market share/power to dictate terms
| to website owners; if they just disabled third-party cookies,
| websites that broke would just tell users to switch to Chrome.
|
| Chrome isn't going to tackle tracking/fingerprinting for
| obvious reasons.
| bennysomething wrote:
| Can anyone tell me why since past version 68 of Firefox on
| Android nearly all my add-ons don't work. Is there an alternative
| for "I don't care about cookies" . Add-ons working on mobile in
| Firefox was the main reason I'm still a Firefox user. They have
| pretty much killed that by breaking compatibility.
| gruez wrote:
| >Can anyone tell me why since past version 68 of Firefox on
| Android nearly all my add-ons don't work
|
| Because they switched rendering engines or something. Now
| addons are restricted to a small subset that they've validated.
| You can use a custom addon collection to install untested
| addons (see:
| https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2020/09/29/expanded-
| extensio...) to get around this, but there's no guarantee that
| the addons will work.
| noisem4ker wrote:
| I can confirm the add-on I Don't Care About Cookies works
| just fine if installed that way. It's just inconvenient. I
| wonder what stops the list of approved add-ons from growing.
| bennysomething wrote:
| I might try this thanks. Looks really involved though!
| mfo4321 wrote:
| Hope you didn't upgrade past 90:
| https://github.com/mozilla-mobile/fenix/issues/20647
| blibble wrote:
| you can do it with nightly but it's a pain in the backside
| tomrod wrote:
| It also broke font sizing/rendering on sites like reddit.
|
| I loved Firefox mobile and this did me dirty. One of the big
| draws was adblock, and on top of needing text and extensions
| they changed the UI to be antiproductive.
|
| Their playstore ratings took a massive nose dive after that
| release. Shame. They are the only real browser competition to
| Chrome.
| afterburner wrote:
| Does the font scaler in Firefox help? I actually switched to
| Firefox mobile several months ago because that finally
| resolved my issues with browsing i.reddit.com on Firefox.
| Chrome would just get the font scaling right, Firefox
| wouldn't before the major engine change.
|
| I am annoyed that Firefox mobile tabs seem to have to refresh
| every single time I "tab out". I'm stubbornly sticking to it
| because of addons though (Dark Reader and uBlock).
| jeroenhd wrote:
| The reason is that Android part of Firefox got a complete
| rewrite when they switched to the new engine. They switched
| from a deeply integrated system over to a more separated
| frontend for GeckoView, a generic Webview component based on
| Gecko. This change implied a lot of changes, particularly to
| the UI and framework surrounding the existing addon code.
|
| Secretly, a lot of addons will run just fine. You can install
| them in the Firefox nightly through the "secret settings"
| (tapping the Firefox logo in the about screen seven times) by
| creating an addon collection and stuffing the right ID in your
| browser.
|
| I can say the new engine is notably faster and the UI is easier
| to use for basic tasks, but all of the features that made me
| switch to Firefox on Android in the first place have been
| removed. Slightly nonstandard features ("being able to use your
| own CA" or even "being able to ignore TLS warnings") took years
| to implement, and logging into a website with a client
| certificate is still not possible.
|
| They even took about:config from us in the stable builds,
| because they consider their users babies that will change
| random settings and break something. Firefox has dropped all
| support for power users and has focused on becoming Chrome 2.0,
| a goal which I don't think they'll ever be able to accomplish.
| If you don't follow the standard workflow of the 80% who forget
| to disable Mozilla's stalking, you're no longer important.
|
| I'm still on Firefox but every day I'm nudged closer to just
| switching to Bromite instead. The lack of proper addon support
| was understandable at first, but by now I hoped to have some
| decent addon support back already. I guess the team working on
| it must've gotten culled so Mozilla's CEO could afford their
| pay raise.
| bennysomething wrote:
| Why the down votes!?
| jccalhoun wrote:
| I have not tried it but iceraven is a fork of the android
| version and it tries to allow more addons to be installed
| https://github.com/fork-maintainers/iceraven-browser
| [deleted]
| svnpenn wrote:
| Android Firefox has explicitly disabled support for installing
| custom add-ons [1], while they try to force developers into
| registering on AMO.
|
| 1. https://github.com/mozilla-mobile/fenix/issues/20647
| DavideNL wrote:
| I hate how Safari on iPad does not have proper Cookie handling...
| The only solution is to permanently use Safari in "private mode",
| but it has some limitations (you cannot remember your browsing
| history, and you can't set a default Font size for example.)
|
| Firefox on iOS _can_ do this, but you can't set a Font size at
| all. So many websites (like Hacker News) are nearly impossible to
| read on an iPad.
| nagyf wrote:
| Why does HN have such a bad font size? I always have to set it
| to 120% otherwise it's so small I can't even read it on my big
| ultrawide monitor.
|
| This is the only website which I have to scale up on every
| computer...
| dmos62 wrote:
| My 1440p monitor works ok with HN's defaults.
| q-rews wrote:
| Because HN is not "designed" as much as it's just been
| written by dinosaurs who visit it via Lynx. My browser is
| currently at 150% and I'm basically a millennial.
|
| The smallest font on this page is 9px, that's just ludicrous.
|
| I mean just open the CSS file and judge for yourself.
| gruez wrote:
| Do you have eyesight issues and/or a high dpi display? I'm
| using a ~105 ppi display and it works fine with regular font
| size.
| jlarocco wrote:
| I do have a high DPI display, and HN is ridiculously tiny
| without manually overriding, because it's setting text size
| in pixels instead of points, for no good reason. It doesn't
| make any sense. View source shows: line-
| height:12pt; height:10px;
|
| Why use device independent units for line-height, but not
| the text itself?
| gruez wrote:
| >setting text size in pixels instead of points
|
| "px" in css doesn't correspond to literal pixels on the
| display.
|
| >By definition, this is the physical size of a single
| pixel at a pixel density of 96 DPI, located an arm's
| length away from the viewer's eyes.
|
| https://developer.mozilla.org/en-
| US/docs/Glossary/CSS_pixel
| jlarocco wrote:
| Thank you. It seems "px" is really the worst of both
| worlds, then.
|
| It's not device independent like "pt", it's not what most
| people expect it to be (one device pixel), and there's
| subjective "wiggle room" in what it actually means.
| gruez wrote:
| >It's not device independent like "pt", it's not what
| most people expect it to be (one device pixel), and
| there's subjective "wiggle room" in what it actually
| means.
|
| This seems to also be incorrect. px and pt are both
| absolute units, and 1.33px == 1pt. If you want relative
| units you need to use something like em.
|
| https://developer.mozilla.org/en-
| US/docs/Learn/CSS/Building_...
| dmos62 wrote:
| em and rem are relative to properties on other nodes in
| the document's CSS hierarchy; they're not relative to
| some screen-size specific metric.
|
| I've not studied the topic in any depth, but I believe
| that an adaptive ruleset would just use CSS media queries
| (use this font size when viewport width is more than
| something). That is what Bootstrap does. Or, use
| viewport-relative units like vw, vh, vmin, vmax, but I
| doubt that would work well.
| gruez wrote:
| >they're not relative to some screen-size specific
| metric.
|
| The fundamental problem here is that the browser can only
| adjust for device pixel density and not other variables
| that affect visibility (eg. the viewer's visual acuity or
| the viewing distance). That said, using absolute units is
| still the best choice for text size, considering the
| other relative units (eg. relative to viewport size) is
| worse.
|
| >I've not studied the topic in any depth, but I believe
| that an adaptive ruleset would just use CSS media queries
| (use this font size when viewport width is more than
| something).
|
| HN has this. See the /* mobile device */ section in
| news.css.
| q-rews wrote:
| As opposed to using points? That makes no sense. Every
| single CSS unit just maps to a fixed value in pixels[1],
| from em to % and cm.
|
| The only reason why they're in pt is that who wrote the
| stylesheet didn't know any better.
|
| 1: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-
| US/docs/Learn/CSS/Building_...
| gruez wrote:
| >As opposed to using points? That makes no sense.
|
| Seems like you're replying to the wrong comment. The
| comment you're replying to is my comment arguing
| _against_ using "pixels instead of points".
| adamc wrote:
| Might be an age issue. When you get older, small font sizes
| are problematic. It's rude of sites to use them, IMO.
| tomc1985 wrote:
| Personally I hate large font sizes. What do they think I
| am, 5?
| q-rews wrote:
| It depends on how large. 16/18px is a good default for
| body copy. IFTTT is just taking the piss, I visit it at
| 70% or less.
| jrochkind1 wrote:
| My "eyesight issue" is being older than 40 ha! It'll happen
| to you too youngster!
| OJFord wrote:
| I have a 123ppi display, normal is _ok_ but I have it
| zoomed _out_ to 80 or 90%.
|
| People are different, so it's good to have font size and
| zoom options. Some can go bigger, some can go smaller. I
| use 80% on a lot of sites, and an extension called 'Zoom
| Page WE' to remember the settings.
| spideymans wrote:
| Gosh, I'm happy I'm not the only one. I have 20/20 vision,
| yet I have to turn up the HN font size on all my devices.
| It's the only site I've had to do this.
| beltsazar wrote:
| In addition to zooming in to 110%, I also apply this CSS for
| increasing the line spacing and decreasing the number of
| words per line: div.comment {
| line-height: 1.5 } td { max-
| width: 700px; }
|
| It improves the readability a lot for me.
| input_sh wrote:
| Just 120? I do 150% each time.
|
| Font size is set to _really_ low (titles on the homepage are
| 10px, comments are even smaller).
|
| I can read it fine at 100%, it just requires a bit more
| mental struggle in the age where font sizes are usually in
| 16/18px range.
| Angostura wrote:
| What would proper cookie handling look like for you, in this
| context? What would you like to be able to do?
| DavideNL wrote:
| I want to
|
| - specify which websites may store cookies/cache. All
| websites not specified can not store anything (and thus not
| track me), and all data for these websites is deleted once i
| close the tab
|
| - i want to remember all my history
|
| I can do this in Firefox on macOS (with some container
| extensions, can't remember the names now)
| jonnytran wrote:
| I started using the DuckDuckGo app on iOS to do exactly
| this. You can choose to "fireproof" any site you're on,
| adding it to a list of sites that's immune to clearing all
| data.
|
| I don't think it has a history feature at all though.
| herodotus wrote:
| Safari used to have a feature where you could delete all
| cookies except for ones you had explicitly marked to keep.
| So, for example, I might keep ones like my bank login name
| and my amazon history, but very easily remove everything
| else. I used this all the time. Even better would be the
| option to delete all but selected cookies every time I closed
| Safari.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-08-10 23:00 UTC)