I’ve been using Consent-O-Matic which works pretty well but built into the browser? Wow.

  • Daniel Retana@mastodon.ie
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    @Atemu This is why, for me, Firefox is unreplaceable on Android. Just the fact that’s not Chromium + also supports extensions is what makes it superior.
    I wish that it’ll come pre-installed in phones instead of Chrome, so more people can give it a try. But is Android and Google would never allow that.

      • deweydecibel@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        The question is, did they get your comment? You didn’t @ them. Does Mastodon know how to interpret and exchange replies from Lemmy if it doesn’t use @ tagging?

        • Daniel Retana@mastodon.ie
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          @deweydecibel @Sekoia Yes, I got your reply without @ me. ActivityPub works in mysterious ways.
          For example: I can create new posts on Lemmy/Kbin, but those posts can be only text. I still haven’t figured out how to post images.

    • FlappyBubble@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Too bad the sandboxing is not working. I use Vanadium right now but Firefox on desktop. I would switch instantly if they beefed up security.

    • FlappyBubble@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Too bad the sandboxing is not working. I use Vanadium right now but Firefox on desktop. I would switch instantly if they beefed up security.

  • Lemmy.ml@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    It’s so unfortunate that Firefox on Android, for some reason, never worked well with password managers (as I understand it, it doesn’t support the APIs that Android has for them). Sometimes it’ll trigger the manager, more often, it won’t. Infuriating and a deal breaker for me.

    I’ll give it another go, maybe this has been improved recently.

    Edit gave it another crack, gosh, it actually works now!

    • tj111@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      I use the firefox password manager personally. Not sure if that makes me an idiot or not but it works well and I trust mozilla.

      • StarkillerX42@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It doesn’t make you an idiot. It is a free service that offers every service a premium password manager does. The real idiots are the people paying mothly for the same thing…

    • Urist@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Found out about this literally three days ago and it has been such a blessing. I am a little unsure though with regards to what settings are applied from blocking the banners. I would assume it should enforce a minimal amount of cookies due to the lack of acceptance.

      • SokathHisEyesOpen@lemmy.ml
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Unless they have US specific behavior. The US doesn’t even require a notice, some devs just included it because they were too lazy to add geolocation.

        • subtext@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Or because geolocation can be flaky. I’d assume management would rather comply with the GDPR requirements than risk ever getting into a lawsuit because they relied on IP geolocation.

  • WhoRoger@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Firefox bringing an actual useful feature? Not removing one? Not bringing in more telemetry and reporting? Not doing more restrictions? Not copying Chrome?

    Am I dead?

    • Lumidaub@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Wait, I thought that just accepted everything? Because if you don’t care about cookies, you’d be fine with anything, no? But “rejecting” cookie banners to me implies rejecting cookies which is different if I’m not mistaken.

      • cheer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        That extension is just hiding the banner, same as if you blocked it with ublock cosmetic filtering

        • Sleepkever@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Not 100% true according to the description on that page. It just hides the banner if possible but it will automatically accept some or even all cookies and tracking if it is required for the site to function. And their choice if they accept some or all depends on “whichever is easier to do”.

          And functionality of the website could be social media or video embedding which might be “required for the site to function” in the eyes of the extension maintainers. But which will send data to Facebook, Google, and the likes. That could be okay depending on what your stance but a good thing to be aware of.