There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

ChaoticEntropy ,
@ChaoticEntropy@feddit.uk avatar

Is this different from blocking 3rd party cookies?

intensely_human ,

Aren’t cookies already limited to the site at which they were created??

What the fuck? You mean to tell me sites have been sharing cookies?

I thought all browsers only delivered cookies back to the same site.

Dave ,
@Dave@lemmy.nz avatar

The problem is that a website is generally not served from one domain.

Put a Facebook like button on your website, it’s loaded directly from Facebook servers. Now they can put a cookie on your computer with an identifier.

Now every site you visit with a Facebook like button, they know it was you. They can watch you as you move around the web.

Google does this at a larger scale. Every site with Google ads on it. Every site using Google analytics. Every site that embeds a Google map. They can stick a cookie in and know you were there.

intensely_human ,

Is that because the like button is an iframe?

Dave ,
@Dave@lemmy.nz avatar

It doesn’t have to be. Your browser sends the cookies for a domain with every request to that domain. So you have a website example.com, that embeds a Facebook like button from Facebook.com.

When your browser downloads the page, it requests the different pieces of the page. It requests the main page from example.com, your browser sends any example.com cookies with the request.

Your browser needs the javascript, it sends the cookie in the request to get the JavaScript file. It needs the like button, it sends a request off to Facebook.com and sends the Facebook.com cookies with it.

Note that the request to example.com doesn’t send the cookies for Facebook.com, and the request to Facebook.com doesn’t send the cookie for example.com to Facebook. However, it does tell Facebook.com that the request for the like button came from example.com.

Facebook puts an identifier in the cookie, and any request to Facebook sends that cookie and the site it was loaded on.

So you log in to Facebook, it puts an identifier in your cookies. Now whenever you go to other sites with a Facebook like button (or the Facebook analytics stuff), Facebook links that with your profile.

Not logged in? Facebook sets an identifier to track you anyway, and links it up when you make an account or log in.

Nightsoul ,

Thank you for the explanation!

MonkderVierte ,

Put a Facebook like button on your website, it’s loaded directly from Facebook servers. Now they can put a cookie on your computer with an identifier.

Which is not allowed by GDPR btw, because they do that even if you don’t click them. There are plenty guides online, how to create your own, not tracking facebook like button.

Dave ,
@Dave@lemmy.nz avatar

How does GDPR fit in to Google Analytics and personalised ads?

I would have thought it went something like: random identifier: not linked to personal info, just a collection of browsing history for an unidentified person, not under GDPR as not personal info.

Link to account: let them request deletion (or more specifically, delinking the info from your account is what Facebook lets you do), GDPR compliant.

Both Google and Facebook run analytics software that tracks users. I presume letting people request deletion once it’s personally linked to them is probably what let’s them do it? But I don’t live in a GDPR country, so I don’t know a whole lot about it.

MonkderVierte ,

No, it should’ve been opt-in. But loophole with “vital interest” and politics being slow and surface-level like politics.

FuryMaker ,

Is this also how they know which ads to feed you?

Dave ,
@Dave@lemmy.nz avatar

Yes, it’s the reason for the tracking. To sell more targeted ads.

If you’re up for reading some shennanigans, check out the book Mindf*ck. It’s about the Cambridge Analytica scandal, written by a whistleblower, and details election manipulation using data collected from Facebook and other public or purchased data.

unemployedclaquer ,

NO.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_cookies

Maybe it’s not allowed in your local jurisdiction? But it’s been a problem since forever.

roguetrick ,

https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/6b930c45-2e73-41e8-a15c-0d23ed7c673f.gif

TrickDacy ,
@TrickDacy@lemmy.world avatar

Why are we posting 2 year old articles as though they are new?

troybot ,

Looks like the article was updated today. I’m guessing this was originally covering an announcement for a future rollout and now it’s finally happening?

TrickDacy ,
@TrickDacy@lemmy.world avatar

Maybe. Confusing decision on the part of Mozilla though, if so. I was checking to see if they mentioned which version this update happened in, but couldn’t find it. Then I noticed the original post date. Weird.

AdrianTheFrog ,
@AdrianTheFrog@lemmy.world avatar

this article has not been edited, is from 2022, and says the feature was rolled out in June.

unemployedclaquer ,

I guess it says updated, but hey. PR for Firefox is cool, until the imminent enshittification.

sandbox ,

The moment that Firefox goes too far, it’ll immediately be forked and 75% of the user base would leave within a few months. Their user base is almost entirely privacy-conscious, technologically savvy people.

unemployedclaquer ,

I agree, but something will have to change because chrome will swallow ALL that. Just today some back-end problem was messing up all my stuff, and co-workers were asking, " did you try a different browser? " botch no I did not try Netscape

sandbox ,

Not sure what you mean - I don’t think most of the people still using Firefox are going to switch to a Chromium based browser any time soon, I can’t speak for everyone of course but it feels like Firefox users tend to have an ideological objection to Google having a monopoly on web browsers.

It’s always worth trying a different browser when you have issues on websites - there are a lot of things that can be different beyond the layout and javascript engines - cookies, configuration, addons, etc. Yesterday I noticed a big difference between Chromium and Firefox in that even if you hard-refresh on a HTTP/2 connection, Chromium reuses a kept-alive connection, and firefox doesn’t — I would totally argue that Firefox’s implementation is more correct, but Chrome’s implementation will lead to a better experience for users hard-refreshing.

tlou3please ,

I think this tips it over the edge for me to switch to Firefox

TrickDacy ,
@TrickDacy@lemmy.world avatar

I hope so! It’s a wonderful side of the Internet to be on

FiniteBanjo ,

I prefer waterfox. Hard to trust Mozilla Corpos.

ours ,

As long as it’s not Chromium, I’m happy people aren’t just handing over the keys to the Internet to Google.

corsicanguppy ,

I miss Mozilla the product.

ssm ,
@ssm@lemmy.sdf.org avatar

Very good! Please remove anonym/PPA, DoH to cloudflare, Google search, telemetry, and pocket next, and I’ll make a consideration to stop calling your browser malware!

TrickDacy ,
@TrickDacy@lemmy.world avatar

Shocker, FF troll hates on FF even when it does good things

ssm ,
@ssm@lemmy.sdf.org avatar

1 step forwards 3 steps back is still 1 step forward 3 steps back

True ,
@True@lemy.lol avatar

What about depreciating third party cookies?

I had never in the previous year visited a single site that required third party cookies.

I never found anyone who have a use case for it, I even disable it at every PC I setup or administer with zero problems.

Dran_Arcana ,

Oracle, SAP, Redhat, all of their customer portals require it for SSO. I’m not saying it should be that way, but it is.

Psythik ,

Is this the reason why I have to “confirm it’s you” every time I sign into a Google service now? I appreciate the fact that Firefox’s protection is so good that Google doesn’t recognize my PC anymore, but it’s extremely annoying to have to pull out my phone every time I want to watch YouTube.

This might be what finally convinces me to ditch Google for good. Good job, Firefox devs.

xthexder ,
@xthexder@l.sw0.com avatar

This wouldn’t make you have to log in every time you watch YouTube. It means by signing in to google.com, youtube.com can’t tell that you’re signed in. If you sign in on youtube.com, you’ll stay signed in on youtube.com unless you have something else deleting your cookies.

Psythik ,

Well have had my cookies set to delete every time I close the browser for several years now but FF only now started doing this verification thing. A week ago all I had to do was enter my email and password.

xthexder ,
@xthexder@l.sw0.com avatar

If you’re already deleting all your cookies every time you close, then this new change should be identical to your first login of the day when your browser has no cookies. If you’re only getting 2fa requests after this change, then maybe you weren’t actually deleting every cookie, and Google was still fingerprinting you somehow.

catloaf ,

You may want to just use tab containers for youtube, so that it maintains your session, but also isolates it.

mitrosus ,

Best way to use such (para)sites.

TrickDacy ,
@TrickDacy@lemmy.world avatar

This article is from 2022

viking ,
@viking@infosec.pub avatar

It was updated today. 2 years ago it was just an announcement of a beta function in private browsing, the full rollout happened with 129.0.2 which was released a few days back.

TrickDacy ,
@TrickDacy@lemmy.world avatar

Cool, thanks. How’d you find the version number? I was looking on the linked post but didn’t find it. Maybe just me being tired.

viking ,
@viking@infosec.pub avatar

I don’t think it was in the article, but I updated to 192.0.2 yesterday and checked the enhanced tracking protection settings, and block cross-site cookies is now in the default profile, so that was my assumption since it wasn’t there previously.

chiliedogg ,

No. That’s just Google trying to pester you into using Chrome.

AdrianTheFrog ,
@AdrianTheFrog@lemmy.world avatar

I actually had a problem where on Chrome, I would be signed out of my google account every time I restart my computer, while on Firefox, everything works normally. I use Firefox now lol.

Bonesince1997 ,

Take that, cookie monsters!

joyjoy ,

Mozilla completes what Google was too afraid to finish.

01189998819991197253 ,
@01189998819991197253@infosec.pub avatar

They call it TCP. All we need now is IP, and we’ll be set lol

unemployedclaquer ,

Nah math is bad for internet.

MinusPi ,

It baffles me that this was ever not the case.

mbirth ,

It was - in the ancient times. Then, there were 3rd party cookies which you had to manually approve upon the initial creation. And then it went all down south and got abused via CDNs and ad networks.

terminhell ,

Well, now how am I supposed to cross reference my need of fuzzy slippers and woodworking stuff?!

phoneymouse ,

Does this make containers unnecessary? Or basically built in?

MediaSensationalism ,
@MediaSensationalism@lemmy.world avatar

FREEEDOOOOOOOOOOOM

altima_neo ,
@altima_neo@lemmy.zip avatar

A lot different. Containers act as a separate instance of Firefox. So any sites you visit within a container can see each other as if you were using a browser normally. The containers can’t see the stuff from other containers though. So you have to actively switch containers all the time to make it work right.

This keeps cookies locked to each page that needs cookies. So a lot stronger.

phoneymouse ,

So what you’re saying is, each site gets its own container?

PeachMan ,
@PeachMan@lemmy.world avatar

I think there’s some confusion here. You’re talking about Multi-Account Containers, that person was talking about the Facebook Container. Both Firefox features with confusingly similar names, and honestly that’s on Firefox for naming them.

Facebook Container is similar to this TCP feature, but focused on Facebook. And of course it was a separate extension, so very opt-in. Now, Firefox has rolled it out for ALL sites by default, which is awesome and SHOULD HAVE BEEN HOW COOKIES WORKED IN THE FIRST PLACE!

Jessica ,

Yeah this basically sounds like it takes the temporary container add on that I think was folded into Firefox at some point recently and basically just does it behind the scenes now on a per domain basis

snaggen ,
@snaggen@programming.dev avatar

It is making the tracking protection part of containers obsolete, this is basically that functionality but built in and default. The containers still let you have multiple cookie jars for the same site, so they are still useful if you have multiple accounts on a site.

Cosmicomical ,

Does this stop me from adding to my website an iframe to facebook where facebook can keep its cookies for my user? That would be great but I doubt it.

monogram ,

IIRC an iframe contents is treated as a separate window, so cookies aren’t shared either

Feyd ,

developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/…/postMessage

monogram ,

That’s horrific WHY?

do not add any event listeners for message events. This is a completely foolproof way to avoid security problems. 🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡

Cosmicomical ,

Sure, but the separate window can be on a different domain. Now you have a way to share cookies across multiple websites on different domains if all of them include an iframe to this external domain. And you can use in-browser messages (see window.postMessage()) to communicate between iframes and main window.

Psythik ,

I haven’t worked with HTML since 1999; I hate that I’m just now finding out that iframes are somehow still a thing in the modern world. What the actual fuck. Why? Don’t we have some fancy HTML5 or Ajax or something that can replace them?

gamermanh ,
@gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

HTML5 can store HTML files inside of HTML files, allowing you to do what an iframe does but with a static (or updated when the page refreshes or whatever) html page

AJAX also has something that can replace iframes

But iframes continue to exist likely for legacy and how easy it is to get a basic page running using them for home projects

Cosmicomical ,

Yeah i don’t know why, probably exactly because is such a neglected feature that it offers workarounds for some limitations, like in the case of cookie-related patterns.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •