Ironically enough, yes that's exactly what I'm saying.
If Apple isn't respecting their own users requests that cookies be blocked I would think you must be correct and it's a Safari bug unless Apple has some reason to ignore user's browser settings.
Or perhaps Apple never intended for Safari to block any cookies from Apple, just everyone else and that's the source of the workaround (and maybe the reason a patch hasn't yet been promised or offered). Strange indeed.
You want to leverage all of the free resources that are being provided but want to give nothing in return. That's fine, but then you ought to do the work. Block cookies. Setup your browser to not send anything out. It can be done.
1st of all, If I have to give something in return then it is not "free".
It seems to me that Google, and others, have commercialised the Internet so that it is no longer free in the way that it once was. We have become inured to this to such an extent that those like yourself now believe that to want it any other way is unreasonable. It is true that Google doesn't charge users for services such as Gmail but it does serve ads to users based on its 'bots reading of the emails it delivers. To my mind this is just as much "requiring payment" as TV advertisers who sponsor TV shows inserting ads in breaks. We do not have to read the ads, or click on them, but then neither do we have to sit through TV ads these days.
Google is an all pervading presence on the web today. Your insistence that those of us who don't like this should "stop using Google sites" is a little disingenuous. Of course using Google sites - as in those owned by Google - like Picasa, Youtube etc. - is inviting Google onto your computer. However, it is not possible to traverse the web in any way that could be considered "freely" without accessing sites that are not openly owned/influenced/sponsored/paid by Google. From each of those sites Google will harvest information about my browsing habits, my computer type, my location etc. if I do not go to considerable lengths to obfuscate these details. Putting this onus on me, to hide my behaviour, is relieving me of some level of freedom. To pretend otherwise is being a stranger to the truth.
I use Gmail and consider the tradeoff in being presented with ads as reasonable in the same way I sometimes watch commercial TV. I have never considered this as taking advantage of Google nor do I view it as free. There are more ways to pay than with mammon.
1st of all, If I have to give something in return then it is not "free".
It seems to me that Google, and others, have commercialised the Internet so that it is no longer free in the way that it once was. We have become inured to this to such an extent that those like yourself now believe that to want it any other way is unreasonable. It is true that Google doesn't charge users for services such as Gmail but it does serve ads to users based on its 'bots reading of the emails it delivers. To my mind this is just as much "requiring payment" as TV advertisers who sponsor TV shows inserting ads in breaks. We do not have to read the ads, or click on them, but then neither do we have to sit through TV ads these days.
Google is an all pervading presence on the web today. Your insistence that those of us who don't like this should "stop using Google sites" is a little disingenuous. Of course using Google sites - as in those owned by Google - like Picasa, Youtube etc. - is inviting Google onto your computer. However, it is not possible to traverse the web in any way that could be considered "freely" without accessing sites that are not openly owned/influenced/sponsored/paid by Google. From each of those sites Google will harvest information about my browsing habits, my computer type, my location etc. if I do not go to considerable lengths to obfuscate these details. Putting this onus on me, to hide my behaviour, is relieving me of some level of freedom. To pretend otherwise is being a stranger to the truth.
I use Gmail and consider the tradeoff in being presented with ads as reasonable in the same way I sometimes watch commercial TV. I have never considered this as taking advantage of Google nor do I view it as free. There are more ways to pay than with mammon.
Then this one should bother you even more: It seems nearly every site I visit (I use FireFox as my browser) wants to offer up Facebook cookies/code, a service I don't use at all and thus derive zero benefit from. What does Facebook do with details it harvests from my web travels since I'm not a Facebook member?
At least Google can make the argument, true or not, they need something from me to offer better search results or in return for Gmail or Google Docs, Google Maps or Google Reader or whatever. What is Facebooks explanation and what are they offering me? Why do they need to know anything about me??
Google Analytics and a whole bunch of other advertisement scripts are being blocked by the NO SCRIPT add on!
Many many thanks for the mention of No Scripts. The program's default is to distrust all Facebook scripts (the developer is apparently pretty smart), and the control it offers in allowing others, temp or permanent, blocking or adding to the global distrust, customizing website permissions, and letting me know just what scripts are attempting to run is wonderful.
Comments
Ironically enough, yes that's exactly what I'm saying.
Or perhaps Apple never intended for Safari to block any cookies from Apple, just everyone else and that's the source of the workaround (and maybe the reason a patch hasn't yet been promised or offered). Strange indeed.
It is an action you can take.
You want to leverage all of the free resources that are being provided but want to give nothing in return. That's fine, but then you ought to do the work. Block cookies. Setup your browser to not send anything out. It can be done.
1st of all, If I have to give something in return then it is not "free".
It seems to me that Google, and others, have commercialised the Internet so that it is no longer free in the way that it once was. We have become inured to this to such an extent that those like yourself now believe that to want it any other way is unreasonable. It is true that Google doesn't charge users for services such as Gmail but it does serve ads to users based on its 'bots reading of the emails it delivers. To my mind this is just as much "requiring payment" as TV advertisers who sponsor TV shows inserting ads in breaks. We do not have to read the ads, or click on them, but then neither do we have to sit through TV ads these days.
Google is an all pervading presence on the web today. Your insistence that those of us who don't like this should "stop using Google sites" is a little disingenuous. Of course using Google sites - as in those owned by Google - like Picasa, Youtube etc. - is inviting Google onto your computer. However, it is not possible to traverse the web in any way that could be considered "freely" without accessing sites that are not openly owned/influenced/sponsored/paid by Google. From each of those sites Google will harvest information about my browsing habits, my computer type, my location etc. if I do not go to considerable lengths to obfuscate these details. Putting this onus on me, to hide my behaviour, is relieving me of some level of freedom. To pretend otherwise is being a stranger to the truth.
I use Gmail and consider the tradeoff in being presented with ads as reasonable in the same way I sometimes watch commercial TV. I have never considered this as taking advantage of Google nor do I view it as free. There are more ways to pay than with mammon.
1st of all, If I have to give something in return then it is not "free".
It seems to me that Google, and others, have commercialised the Internet so that it is no longer free in the way that it once was. We have become inured to this to such an extent that those like yourself now believe that to want it any other way is unreasonable. It is true that Google doesn't charge users for services such as Gmail but it does serve ads to users based on its 'bots reading of the emails it delivers. To my mind this is just as much "requiring payment" as TV advertisers who sponsor TV shows inserting ads in breaks. We do not have to read the ads, or click on them, but then neither do we have to sit through TV ads these days.
Google is an all pervading presence on the web today. Your insistence that those of us who don't like this should "stop using Google sites" is a little disingenuous. Of course using Google sites - as in those owned by Google - like Picasa, Youtube etc. - is inviting Google onto your computer. However, it is not possible to traverse the web in any way that could be considered "freely" without accessing sites that are not openly owned/influenced/sponsored/paid by Google. From each of those sites Google will harvest information about my browsing habits, my computer type, my location etc. if I do not go to considerable lengths to obfuscate these details. Putting this onus on me, to hide my behaviour, is relieving me of some level of freedom. To pretend otherwise is being a stranger to the truth.
I use Gmail and consider the tradeoff in being presented with ads as reasonable in the same way I sometimes watch commercial TV. I have never considered this as taking advantage of Google nor do I view it as free. There are more ways to pay than with mammon.
Then this one should bother you even more: It seems nearly every site I visit (I use FireFox as my browser) wants to offer up Facebook cookies/code, a service I don't use at all and thus derive zero benefit from. What does Facebook do with details it harvests from my web travels since I'm not a Facebook member?
At least Google can make the argument, true or not, they need something from me to offer better search results or in return for Gmail or Google Docs, Google Maps or Google Reader or whatever. What is Facebooks explanation and what are they offering me? Why do they need to know anything about me??
Thank goodness for FireFox.
Google Analytics and a whole bunch of other advertisement scripts are being blocked by the NO SCRIPT add on!
Many many thanks for the mention of No Scripts. The program's default is to distrust all Facebook scripts (the developer is apparently pretty smart), and the control it offers in allowing others, temp or permanent, blocking or adding to the global distrust, customizing website permissions, and letting me know just what scripts are attempting to run is wonderful.