As far as I'm aware no browser offers granular third-party cookie permission controls - e.g. allow third-party cookies from `googleusercontent.com` but only on `drive.google.com`.
Firefox with uMatrix can do that.
To download from Google Drive, you must enable third party cookies?
21–30 of 166 posts
Re: To download from Google Drive, you must enable third party cookies?
#22As far as I'm aware no browser offers granular third-party cookie permission controls - e.g. allow third-party cookies from `googleusercontent.com` but only on `drive.google.com`.
Firefox with uMatrix can do that.
Or ublock origin, in advanced mode. I took time to transition away from umatrix and i miss the interface but it's fine.
Re: To download from Google Drive, you must enable third party cookies?
#23Wasted a lot of time trying to figure this one out a few months ago.
Re: To download from Google Drive, you must enable third party cookies?
#24Earlier quoted context omitted.
Honestly anyone concerned about a Chrome / WebKit browser monopoly needs to use Firefox now if you already are not.
I don't see any problems with a monoculture of rendering engine. Browser (and features, especially privacy ones), absolutely. Renderer, not so much.
I would prefer that an advertising company does not have majority control over the rendering engine
Re: To download from Google Drive, you must enable third party cookies?
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
Honestly anyone concerned about a Chrome / WebKit browser monopoly needs to use Firefox now if you already are not.
I don't see any problems with a monoculture of rendering engine. Browser (and features, especially privacy ones), absolutely. Renderer, not so much.
Have you ever used a service in life where there is no competition?
Straight up lack of competition examples are the easiest: DMV, airport food court, buying beer at a sports stadium etc.
If you work in tech then you’ve probably had to use software over whose purchase you had no control: Jira, PeopleHR, Taleo, Concur. There’s no competition there because you, the end user, don’t have the option to choose from a free market. For the vendor, the software doesn’t have to be any good as long as the sales pitch to you boss is amazing.
Without competition, software rots and/or never gets better. What examples are there of monopolies in Free software that caused a product to languish? OpenSSL, Python’s logging module, systemd since it was locked in as the only properly supported Debian/Ubuntu init, pre-Chrome Firefox/Mozilla, post-GMail Thunderbird.
What examples are there of corporate-sponsored software that languish without competition? Internet Explorer is the classic example but if you think Google are better than Microsoft, at heart, then how’s Android working out for us all in terms of excellence-in-the-void-of-competition?
Re: To download from Google Drive, you must enable third party cookies?
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you elaborate on this? What's special about the domain here for security?
It's a defense in depth mechanism: when you allow user-generated content uploaded on your main domain, somebody will find a way to break your security system and make that content executable on the user's browser. When doing so, an attacker can steal cookies, and/or invoke APIs for the user. Now, there are of course ways to avoid that, but in the end, if every other system fails, being on a domain without any API and…
Is this also another case for hosting your main site on www.example.com instead of example.com? This way you could have cookies only on www.example.com while hosting user generated content on assets.example.com or whatever sub-domain you want that's not www?
Re: To download from Google Drive, you must enable third party cookies?
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
Honestly anyone concerned about a Chrome / WebKit browser monopoly needs to use Firefox now if you already are not.
I don't see any problems with a monoculture of rendering engine. Browser (and features, especially privacy ones), absolutely. Renderer, not so much.
Chromium is such a big deal, that it also easily twists the arm of standardization bodies like the W3C.
If a private party can do as they please and have such a strong say, why bother with standardization bodies?
Re: To download from Google Drive, you must enable third party cookies?
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
Honestly anyone concerned about a Chrome / WebKit browser monopoly needs to use Firefox now if you already are not.
I don't see any problems with a monoculture of rendering engine. Browser (and features, especially privacy ones), absolutely. Renderer, not so much.
The problem is that you are giving full power for creating de-facto standards to the rendering engine.
If Blink decides to support a feature, it becomes a de-facto standard even if the feature solely serves Google (think FLoC, AMP ...) or is hard to replicate.
It's also an issue because now the web is at risk to become only usable from devices that are physically able to run Blink/Webkit which means nobody in the future will be able to create a new useful device/os that cannot run Blink or Webkit.
It's also an issue with the good ol' technical debt : what happens when Blink/Webkit become a total mess full of hard to patch vulnerabilities or google/chrome specific code ? You basically cannot rewrite it from scratch unless you have the engineering power of a GAFAM.
There are tons of reasons why having a monoculture of rendering engine is an issue.
Re: To download from Google Drive, you must enable third party cookies?
#29Seems like in this particular case, notwithstanding Google's long history of abuse and opportunism, this one is a genuine case when you enable a cookie for technical and not (necessarily) user tracking reasons.
It's just another dark pattern their middle management cooks up under the guise of legitimacy.
Re: To download from Google Drive, you must enable third party cookies?
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see any problems with a monoculture of rendering engine. Browser (and features, especially privacy ones), absolutely. Renderer, not so much.
The problem is that you are giving full power for creating de-facto standards to the rendering engine. If Blink decides to support a feature, it becomes a de-facto standard even if the feature solely serves Google (think FLoC, AMP ...) or is hard to replicate. It's also an issue because now the web is at risk to become only usable from devices that are physically able to run Blink/Webkit which means nobody in the fut…
Neither FLoC nor AMP are part of the renderer. AMP isn't even clientside, it is a feature of the Google search webapp.
If Google were trying to leverage the renderer to assert Chrome over say Brave or Edge, sure, but they're not, and if they do, it will be forked.
Do we have the same concerns over type layout engine monoculture?