This is the consequence of wrapping everything in glossy plastics and dumbed down UI for decades. People don’t want to learn, and even if they do it’s all hidden away behind blobs and bloats.

No thats because of the dream monitoring. Don’t be silly.

Incognito, you mean porn mode?

firefox containers are amazing for this

It’s great for testing a site when you’re not sure whether the issue is because you’re logged in or there’s some cached data.

I use it to access the same site with different logins at the same time, or to let someone else log in to a service temporarily using my device

That’s literally the only time I’ve ever used it. Knowing what it is, I don’t even need it. I have the settings set to erase all my history and most other stuff upon closing the browser. Which is exactly what incognito mode does, but temporarily for a single tab session.

I use private, because I am a tab hoarder

“He’s the one who knocks!”

To be fair nothing was stolen, the lawyers even admitted as much.

This is a user error problem caused by the moron in a hurry problem.

The warning on incognito mode both before and after the change was very explicit that it was local only. It was intended for people sharing a computer, not for privacy to anything you searched, external websites, etc

Below the warning even had examples over exactly what was and was not saved with it explicitly saying that external websites would be able to track and save your data including Google.

The change was to add that warning list to the initial warning itself because Google had assumed people would read the entire page. They did not.

Which means that those morons in a hurry who only skimmed misunderstood what incognito mode was for. Did not read the use case, the warning, the TOs, the manual, or any other information provided both explicitly or implicitly.

Hell even parted the argument of the lawyers was that this is a user issue and that Google had a responsibility to prevent people who were ignorant or in a hurry from misunderstanding. And while they made a good faith effort, it could have been better. Google being the large company is taking the fall for this more than anything but it is at the end of the day a user issue.

UPDATE disgustingly_detailed_data SET deleted = true WHERE inkognito = true;

Of course they will! First you make a copy, then you delete the copy. Contractual terms satisfied.

The raw data might be purged but no one talks about the ML modal that google trained with that data.

Oops offshore backup mysteriously occurred.

Wouldn’t that be amazing! I have single frames of good videos stuck in my head that I can never find again.

For buying gifts, for example.

and i’m pretty sure the browsers have been quite explicit about this for a long time now, but of course no one bothers to read “This won’t change how data is collected by websites you visit and the services they use, including Google.”

I think the techno illiterate boomers of the fediverse are probably flabbergasted

Doesn’t it specifically say on a new incognito tab that this doesn’t protect against sites or service providers from gathering information…and only stops you from storing local information (history, cookies, etc)? Do people actually think that incognito is adding privacy protection?

This was silently changed it used not to have the disclaimer sentence