@avrin@thanius I just use Consent-o-Matic to automatically configure the minimum possible amount. The browser blocks third party cookies and now and then I flush. The issue pops up when 1Blocker works its magic on HTML-views that otherwise don't have full extension support. In a full browser window, I could have temporarily disabled content blockers and let Consent-o-Matic do its work. As it is, I just don’t go back to sites that have nefarious designs like this, but private mode is a temp fix.
@trezzer@thanius ironically with features like firstPartyIsolate/TCP on Firefox and state partitioning and perSiteProcesses on chromium, it doesn't really matter anyways because cookies can only communicate and be accessed with the domain that issued them. a cookie issued by CNN.com cannot track you any website other than CNN.com, although I wouldn't be surprised if they employ generous amounts of browser fingerprinting for profile building, as well.
@trezzer@thanius yes but not all tracking is malicious. I would prefer none of it as well but in site tracking of how many articles read and what not isn't harmful
@avrin@thanius I agree. But we know that's not the main reason why they track. If this were some small hobbyist site, I'd believe the intent were different, you know?
@thanius@trezzer the only justifiable reason I can think of to implement something like this is to ensure they are GDPR/CCPA compliant by forcing users to see the cookie banner. often times, if you block the banner, the site will just assume acceptance and issue a cookie. just becaue the banner is gone doesn't mean the cookie is, so by requiring users to see that banner, the user HAS to select "accept" or "reject cookies".
@thanius@trezzer ironically though, I'm not using any Easylist filters either but I am using a different cookie banner blocking list which I'm assuming is what they're detecting. Firefox also has a built in cookie banner blocker setting which isn't as good but can cause this warning to pop up.