31–40 of 231 posts
wouldn't it make more sense to change the browser to make cookies and localstorage non-persistent and isolated, but otherwise available programmatically and to XHRs.
i.e so that they can exist in isolation as long as the tab is open. This would be compatible with anything that doesn't require cross frame or cross tab persistence (which is usually all users care about).
> All I am using is some innocent localStorage and IndexedDB to persist user settings like the values of the sliders or the chosen color scheme. When you turn off cookies you're telling the browser not to let sites persist information. Otherwise, whatever goals you had in disabling cookies would just be worked around through these other technologies.
Of course, I also know why it’s not called that: a lot of people know what cookies are at this point, at least relative to the number who'd understand “persistent storage”. A toggle named “disable cookies” is better for usability.
On the other hand, trying to guess what the user actually wants based on a different preference is virtually guaranteed to cause confusion of its own. Should the setting also disable Canvas, since that’s commonly used for fingerprinting? And will Google make the same decision in Chrome v104 as they do in Chrome v110?
I can’t decide whether the primary issue is:
• The name of the setting.
• The undeserved cultural prominence we’ve given “cookies” specifically.
• The modern web in general.
What if browsers made it so when you turned off cookies, instead of not allowing anything to be written, they instead gave each page you visited its own fresh cookie jar that was cleared when you navigated away?
Isn't that basically what a session cookie is?
What if browsers made it so when you turned off cookies, instead of not allowing anything to be written, they instead gave each page you visited its own fresh cookie jar that was cleared when you navigated away?
This is loosely what Firefox's temporary containers [0] extension does. Each tab (with options to control whether a tab spawned from a parent tab should inherit the cookie-jar context of the parent) gets its own temporary context. I don't recall whether it clears the jar on navigating away, but you can have that jar cleared when the tab is closed, and you can configure new jars when opening a new tab to a new site or…
This feels kinda unscalable though... wouldn't it make more sense to change the browser to make cookies and localstorage non-persistent and isolated, but otherwise available programmatically and to XHRs. i.e so that they can exist in isolation as long as the tab is open. This would be compatible with anything that doesn't require cross frame or cross tab persistence (which is usually all users care about).
> All I am using is some innocent localStorage and IndexedDB to persist user settings like the values of the sliders or the chosen color scheme. When you turn off cookies you're telling the browser not to let sites persist information. Otherwise, whatever goals you had in disabling cookies would just be worked around through these other technologies.
I totally understand your point and I think I agree, except—well, the setting says “disable cookies”. It should do what it says. If the goal is to disable all persistent information, the setting should be called “disable persistent storage”. Of course, I also know why it’s not called that: a lot of people know what cookies are at this point, at least relative to the number who'd understand “persistent storage”. A tog…
Whatever mechanism is used is irrelevant to the meaning/concept.
I naively assumed from the headline that the author would complain about users blocking cookies. I was very pleasantly surprised to see a post written by someone who appreciates that some users will want to do this and is actively working to support delivering them a useful content experience!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How well does this extension work together with the Multi-Account Containers addon ( https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/multi-account... )?
I've been using both for quite some time now. They work very well together and I don't see myself browsing much without them. edit: remove redundant "together"
> All I am using is some innocent localStorage and IndexedDB to persist user settings like the values of the sliders or the chosen color scheme. When you turn off cookies you're telling the browser not to let sites persist information. Otherwise, whatever goals you had in disabling cookies would just be worked around through these other technologies.
I totally understand your point and I think I agree, except—well, the setting says “disable cookies”. It should do what it says. If the goal is to disable all persistent information, the setting should be called “disable persistent storage”. Of course, I also know why it’s not called that: a lot of people know what cookies are at this point, at least relative to the number who'd understand “persistent storage”. A tog…
What if browsers made it so when you turned off cookies, instead of not allowing anything to be written, they instead gave each page you visited its own fresh cookie jar that was cleared when you navigated away?
I do use Multi-Account Containers and Temporary Containers too, but typically when I want multiple simultaneous sessions, rather than wanting my current session to be cleaned up.