It’s not even “Incognito” (what a misnomer too), this is a Gecko-based browser

  • PumpedSardines
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    72
    ·
    2 years ago

    I feel like for straw poll it’s more valid, they probably do it to try and avoid people voting more than once.

    • WhoRogerOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      2 years ago

      A bit yes, but any technique like that can be used to fingerprint and deanonymize users.

      • bustrpoindextr
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        Yes, but that’s the only way you can trust electronic voting, by removing anonymity

    • ditherwither
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      Yes, but if you wanted to, you can write a script that mass votes and bypasses this (if there is no captcha)

  • SevereLow
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    49
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    Cookies are not evil per se… but data mining companies made them like that.

    I’m administrating an online store and cookies are responsible for the customer’s cart, plus their user session / logged in state.

    As an admin I adhere to the “golden rule”, thus there are no creepy trackers on store. I don’t like them and I don’t want customers to face the same thing on websites that I manage.

    That said, cookies are needed for user session & fraud protection. Instead of nuking cookies we shall kick the trackers out.

    • WhoRogerOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      Yea but all that kind of functionality can work with (permanent) private mode as well. I don’t use a lot of web services so I can log in when I need or make a pwa like with Lemmy here.

      • SevereLow
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 years ago

        True. It can work with private mode, but not with browser set to block all cookies, or to nuke JavaScript 😅

  • Quinten
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    51
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    “One vote per IP-address” - So they already tackled the problem that people can vote more then once.

    Straight-up asshole design.

    • WhoRogerOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 years ago

      I’ll look into that. I believe web sites shouldn’t have any way to detect private mode, right?

  • WhiteTiger
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    45
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 years ago

    I mean, of all sites, polls make the most sense to require cookies to avoid duplicate votes.

    • danprs
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      2 years ago

      Wouldn’t the better solution be to keep a log of previous client IPs, on the server side? Sure, VPN will circumvent it, but it’s much easier for me to clear a cookie 100 times then to connect to 100 different VPNs.

      • wander1236@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 years ago

        IP blocking would be really bad if the poll is for students staying in dorms at a university or for people on the same cell carrier.

      • Cynosure
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        IPs rotate too often and it would only allow 1 vote per modem.

      • rehabdoll
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        CGNAT is a thing with regards to IPv4 addresses. So that won’t work.

      • LufyCZ
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        2 years ago

        Not if you don’t know what cookies even are. Stops the regular Joe just fine

        • Katana314
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          2 years ago

          All it takes to swing a poll by 8,000 votes is one person that knows how to clear cookies. It’s not even about stopping regular joes.

          • aimfireready
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            2 years ago

            *one person who knows how to clear cookies…and has WAY too much time on his hands.

            • Katana314
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              2 years ago

              50 votes in a browser would take an hour, but 5,000,000 votes in a browser’s dev tools would take an hour and fifteen minutes; it’s the kind of thing people can write a bit of code to do for them. (I’m a web dev, this doesn’t sound like a challenge to me if there’s no security)

    • Milady
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      29
      ·
      2 years ago

      Cookies are really inappropriate for this use…

      • Beliriel
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        You need to track the user for a poll. Sessions don’t work since private browsing enables duplicate votes. Tracking the IP can block users from the same network/wifi. Cookies get auto-sent and browser storage is only clientside. Really not many more options aside from making an account on a site and logging in. I find it a pretty reasonable solution actually.

        • Milady
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          26
          ·
          2 years ago

          Cookies fall short just the same as sessions. you’re asking the user to pinkie promise they won’t clear their cookies / modify them.

          An account seems the most logical. You need to avoid duplicates ; it’s not really about privacy here. You’ll only make a tradeoff between accomplishing no duplicates and letting users do what they want.

      • JuxtaposedJaguar@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        2 years ago

        It could be useful to prevent accidental duplicate votes. But definitely not sufficient for malicious actors.

        • nachof@feddit.cl
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 years ago

          There’s no way to prevent a malicious user from voting multiple times in an online poll, unless you can somehow tie it to a real world identity (and even then it’s not going to be easy).

          This is just something to stop the workarounds that a 50 year old CEO was aware of.

      • LufyCZ
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 years ago

        I’d think they serve their purpose just fine

        • slampisko
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          16
          ·
          2 years ago

          Clearing cookies is super easy, barely an inconvenience. If someone wants to vote on something a lot and cookies are the only barrier, they might as well not be there

          • Nommer
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            2 years ago

            This. Did it before to fuck with people in online forums

  • Dick Justice
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    38
    ·
    2 years ago

    That’s when I stop giving them traffic. There’s far too many alternatives to do otherwise.

    • ilickfrogs
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      2 years ago

      Enter.

      “NOPE”

      clicks back

      And proceed to chose next search result.

  • Draconic NEO
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    2 years ago

    There’s an extension that allows you to hide incognito mode from websites called Hide Private Mode I’m not sure why browsers don’t do this by default (maybe it’s some funny compliance thing) it would greatly improve privacy.

    • WhoRogerOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 years ago

      Thx. It’s weird, but I guess that’s now part of Firefox now, to be hypocrites.

      Also why the heck does the browser need to ping Google every time I launch a private session? I can’t even fathom a reasonable answer.

      • jcg
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        Did you opt in to sending your usage statistics to Google wine you first installed Chrome?

        • WhoRogerOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 years ago

          Chrome? Why would I ever install that shit?

          • jcg
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            2 years ago

            What browser are you using that pings Google?

            • WhoRogerOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 years ago

              IceRaven - FF for Android fork that tries to remove all this crap but isn’t 100% there yet due to all the nonsense Mozilla includes.

              Generic FF did the same last time I used it. I think Mull doesn’t, but I haven’t used it in a while.

  • DreamySweet@vlemmy.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 years ago

    It’s not pointless, it’s so they can track you.

    what a misnomer too

    It’s crazy how many people think “incognito mode” prevents people from seeing what websites they are visiting.

    • funkless
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      2 years ago

      yeah, it’s for buying secret Christmas presents for your wife

        • PixxlMan
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          19
          ·
          2 years ago

          Why would anyone regularly access a routers control panel just to ruin the surprise of Christmas presents?

          • DreamySweet@vlemmy.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            2 years ago

            No idea, but she could. I would use public wifi and a private window for it, just to be sure.

            • AlataOrange
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 years ago

              Is there so little trust in your relationship that you feel the need to go to such extreme lengths to make them happy?

          • nero
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 years ago

            They can see what you visited though

  • IzzyBanned
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    2 years ago

    Any websites that doesn’t just work with a simple ad blocker or still has ads I just close and never return.

    • 𝔼𝕩𝕦𝕤𝕚𝕒
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      2 years ago

      “Oops! Looks like you’re using an adblocker! Please pay a subscription!”

      Oops looks like I’m gonna check the comments for someone who pasted your article for free!

      • MBM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        2 years ago

        Just don’t complain when people no longer write good articles because there’s no money in it

        • 𝔼𝕩𝕦𝕤𝕚𝕒
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          2 years ago

          Adblockers are borne of intrusive ads. If they were sidebar things like they used to be I’d be much less inclined to use one and just let them collect their ad revenue. Nowadays though there’s gotta be a video, a video embedded at the top, a pop-up ad, a break in an article every 10 lines of text for an ad, and then a delayed popup for when you get halfway down the page, PLUS the sidebar and banner ads.

          • R0cket_M00se
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            2 years ago

            Exactly, sidebar and banner are fine. If that’s all I see I’ll let it slide. The ones that make you stop reading to chase down the little black “x” on a pop up or separate the text with a wall of ad, fuck that shit.

        • hydra
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 years ago

          Quit wasting my bandwidth, an adblocker makes the difference between a loaded page and a useless one in unstable mobile connections

  • nieceandtows
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 years ago

    It kind of makes sense for strawpoll, because without some sort of cookies, they wouldn’t know if the same person is voting multiple times. But they should say something like ‘incognito mode makes the votes inaccurate, please visit on normal mode’

    • joyjoy
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      One vote per IP-Address allowed.

      They already have your IP. “Incognito” mode doesn’t change that.

      • BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        2 years ago

        That does have the consequence of allowing only one person to vote per public IP, which on large networks may correspond to quite a lot of users.

        That probably doesn’t matter much for a simple internet straw poll, but I can imagine situations where IP-based uniqueness isn’t reliable enough.

      • Pokadots
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 years ago

        What if you have multiple people voting from the same place/public IP?

  • kaotic
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 years ago

    I kind of understand this one though, 99% of the time stuff like this is just bullshit. But this is an effort to stop users from voting multiple times.

  • ComradeR@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    2 years ago

    When I go to a site, and they do it, I avoid it at all the costs or never come back!

  • lynny
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    2 years ago

    Sites like this I just close the tab and use uBlacklist to hide them from any search results.

    • WhoRogerOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      It’s IceRaven, but I have it set to permanent private mode. I dont need to deal with cookies of every shitty site.

      • Drun
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        15
        ·
        2 years ago

        It just how internet works, dude. Most of the sites can’t work without cookies at all.

        • grue
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          16
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 years ago

          We need to be teaching sites that working that way is unacceptable, not accepting it.

        • WhoRogerOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 years ago

          Well maybe some need cookies internally, that doesn’t mean I need to be storing them permanently. Most web sites are so full of scripts and bullshit that it’s infinitely much easier to disable all the nonsense and run in permanent private mode.

  • possiblylinux127
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 years ago

    Honestly people should just set there browser to clear cookies on close