Posted by Wahaha | in AskRamble

Aren't 99% of cookies completely useless to end users? I'm using the "Cookie Auto-Delete" extension to only keep cookies that are beneficial and don't see any downside to this.

There was/is this complete inane EU cookie law, when it would have been so much easier to just force browser vendors to delete cookies and have users whitelist the ones they want.

5

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

div1337 said ()

Yes that's right, they are 99% useless to end users. That's a good idea actually, browsers should really have better cookie management feature

1

Wahaha OP said ()

You don't whitelist individual cookies, but domains. Which basically comes down to whitelisting the few sites you have an account and want to stay logged in to. Because that and saving some layout choices is pretty much the only value I've found cookies to provide for users.

1

Kalchaya said ()

There are no 'good' cookies. Only those some are fooled into thinking are useful to themselves....but are always far more useful to others. I have Self-Destructing Cookies on my Firefox-deriative browsers, Cookinator on auto, then always back that up with BleachBit and CCleaner prior to turning off the PC.

1

Wahaha OP said ()

I kinda like the cookies that keep me logged in to websites I use frequently. Or the ones saving some layout choices, like dark mode.

1

Kalchaya said ()

Everything is pretty much a cost-benefit ratio....in this case, convenience vs inconvenience. I have no problem logging into sites in order to maintain a cookie-free PC. Well, so far as I can make it cookie-free. There is only so much Self-Destructing Cookies, BleachBit, and CCleaner will do.

2