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

    • Beliriel@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      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
        5
        ·
        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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year 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
        ·
        1 year 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.

      • slampisko@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        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