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

  • PumpedSardines@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    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.

  • nieceandtows@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    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’

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

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

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

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

    Straight-up asshole design.

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

      • Beliriel@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        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
          0
          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.

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

      It would be nice if you could whitelist sites for cookies. That way you can stay logged into things like email.

      • Milady@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        20
        ·
        1 year ago

        You can, on firefox at least. No add ons required it’s a browser feature.

    • WhoRoger@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      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
        0
        ·
        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
          1
          ·
          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.