this post was submitted on 20 Sep 2023
90 points (98.9% liked)

Linux and Tech News

1010 readers
1 users here now

This is where all the News about Linux and Linux adjacent things goes. We'll use some of the articles here for the show! You can watch or listen at:

You can also get involved at our forum here on Lemmy:

Or just get the most recent episode of the show here:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] killeronthecorner@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But they serve different purposes? I use privacy badger for auto denial of cookies. Origin doesn't do that.

[–] amanneedsamaid@sopuli.xyz -3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Brave and Firefox both do that. I dont know about Chromium based browsers in this regard, but Firefox's total cookie protection already isolates cookies per-site.

Both browsers' adblockers will block domains ID'd as trackers, so there are no cookies to delete from any domain I would want to.

The more I think about it, why do you need that feature? Firefox and uBlock block tracking domains (and therefore cookies), and uBlock can be configured to block any domain you want.

So if your use case is: "I need any site I visit that is not in a tracker list to have all of its cookies denied, but I don't want to block cookies through my browser or block the entire domain."

Then Privacy Badger does have one feature uBlock does not, and its that one. However, because its not recommendable to use two ad blockers at the same time (i.e. Privacy Badger + uBlock) (see my other comment), Privacy Badger is still obsolete.

If you need that edge case functionality, download Cookie AutoDelete

[–] killeronthecorner@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm talking about auto denial of consent, not blocking of tracking cookies after consent. And I didn't say "block all cookies", you're reaching.

Also they simply aren't the same thing, there is overlap in functionality. You can read more about that from one of the devs here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31680164

You'll also find a dozen others successfully using both of them in tandem in that thread. Taking a negative attitude towards using multiple plugins because it's "not recommended" doesn't change their distinct uses. If you prefer an easy life and would rather have one plugin because you just prefer one plugin, that's your choice.

My multi browser plugin + PiHole + USG setup has been working wonderfully for years, so I'll take the evidence in front of my eyes over the recommendation of someone who doesn't even understand the disjoint features of the plugins.

[–] amanneedsamaid@sopuli.xyz -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I don't see anything in that thread about consent banners, only that privacy badger tries to identify trackers not on its blocklist, a feature I don't want. I also don't understand why blocking consent to receive cookies is at all useful when you can simply block the cookie after consent.

On the off chance you're talking about blocking cookie consent banners (i.e. the popups on websites that ask your consent to send certain cookies), uBlock does that.

I'm sure your PiHole and USG almost fully cover any downsides to your below average choice in browser extension.

something works well ≠ whole thing good

[–] killeronthecorner@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

uBlock does not do that for a cohort of websites for which I have tested it.

You're acting like I haven't tested this setup when I've told you that I have. Again, the evidence in front of your own eyes is a good place to start so try some testing yourself to understand where the limits of each reside.

[–] amanneedsamaid@sopuli.xyz -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Turn on "Easylist Cookies" in uBlock. Also, I feel like a broken record, but why wouldn't you just use an extension like this?

Also, if uBlock's list is missing a cookie banner, it takes two clicks to remove it permanently with the element zapper.

There is no evidence in front my eyes?

[–] killeronthecorner@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You're taking unnecessary issue with a working setup. I've demonstrated why your concerns don't bear fruit. There is nothing left to discuss here.

[–] amanneedsamaid@sopuli.xyz 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Lmao working ≠ perfect, and unnecessary ≠ invalid. You haven't demonstrated anything besides linking to a Hacker News post that didn't talk about the feature you said it did.

There is nothing left to discuss here.

[–] killeronthecorner@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Okay kid, you keep on that road to perfection.

[–] amanneedsamaid@sopuli.xyz 0 points 1 year ago

Okay kid, you keep on looking for a valid reason to use Privacy Badger. 💀