I'm not sure why you're receiving down votes. It's simple as that.
That makes sense. Now it seems like a dilemma though. I assume that authority looking over this aspect of privacy would monitor the cookie sites to ensure no data is being retained when a user selects no, but that still leaves an opening for hackers. Well, I guess empty cookies would only mention the device ID and website ID and date accessed, nothing more.
Yeah what you've described using your pihole sounds like a dream set-up. I honestly think that is the most powerful shield any home can have against data-mining apps, operating systems (looking at you, windows), websites, and even some physical devices (internet of things).
Cookie tracking is something that - now that I think about it - I'm not too familiar with in terms of the original intended site tracking it, but if it's external sites, then yeah just blocking said external site from ever being loaded or script therefrom run should be good enough.
No, just for preventing (I guess you could call it sanitizing with the web as it is now) shady traffic that might happen in the background. It's unfortunate that phones don't have a higher control on authorisation for apps to selectively block user specified IP or web addresses.
Heh, I guess adblocking IS sanitizing your internet access
I use browser extensions that - from what I'm understanding - remove any external script references, or at least prevent the script from loading, but I'll admit, the pihole method is what I've been drooling over for a while now, but haven't arranged yet. Also, it's probably more trustable than a browser extension, ironically. 😅
Naturally, I have both these "cookie" sites denied access.
I also felt that I should mention that any external asset domains can also see this traffic, too, but those typically aren't used with tracking - or the opposite thereof - in mind.
If your site uses an external domain for determining if a user consents to tracking or not, you are still providing a vector for tracking, whether you and your user choose to allow it or not
Something I noticed on a few websites, including stackoverflow, is that they leave tracking settings up to a different website, which still lets that external party know what websites a user has been seeing, and this can be maliciously abused.
I realize this might have been mentioned before, but I didn't see any similar posts in a quick search.
My guess is they want AI dataflow capable internet on the user end.
Previously on Sync, that space was used for subreddit banners, but I'm not sure if many Lemmy communities use a banner.
Ah, I figured there's that kind of problem. I was wondering if the alternative was that the server running the API were a different process or potentially machine from the one running the web front.
Hey. Great work putting the app up so soon. There seems to be an issue every once in a while with loading content regardless of the origin Lemmy server. I'm guessing something on the API end. Is the API host specific instances (i.e. is the host of the sync API currently just the Lemmy.world instance)?
Yeah, I really appreciate the fact that it's an action that can't be done accidentally in most cases.
No one else here use script blocking? Great for selectively disabling external scripts, google analytics, and other trackers, for example.
Good news for you: [yes].(https://lemmy.world/comment/1003891)
I got banned twice on my regular account (by discord admins, not group/server mods) that I had in some dear group chats and one or two servers. The reasons for both was essentially, "spamming/bot account".
Now, I'm no spam expert, but I don't think posting an average 4 or 5 messages an hour for maybe maximum 20 messages in one day counts as spamming, especially if they were relevant to the topics.