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

  • PumpedSardines@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    1 year ago

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

  • Quinten@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

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

    Straight-up asshole design.

    • danprs@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year 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.

        • Katana314@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year 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.

            • Katana314@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year 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)

      • Beliriel@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year 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@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          26
          ·
          1 year 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
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

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

        • slampisko@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year 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

  • Draconic NEO@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    1 year 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.

    • WhoRoger@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year 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.

  • SevereLow@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year 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.

    • WhoRoger@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year 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@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

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

    • WhoRoger@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

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

      • Eavolution@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        I wonder if it tries to save a cookie then read it back? I don’t really know how any of this works but that sounds like a way to detect it that’s fairly infallible.

        • curiosityLynx@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          Writing a cookie and reading it back should work just fine even in incognito mode. It just gets deleted once incognito is closed.

  • lynny@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

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

  • DreamySweet@vlemmy.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year 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.

  • Izzy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

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

    • 𝔼𝕩𝕦𝕤𝕚𝕒@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year 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@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

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

        • 𝔼𝕩𝕦𝕤𝕚𝕒@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year 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@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year 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.

  • nieceandtows@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year 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@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year 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
        2
        ·
        1 year 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.

  • SpaceCadet2000@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    For such things, I have a script that creates a brand new temporary Firefox profile and deletes it immediately after closing the browser.

  • ComradeR@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

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