Reason ? No reason

[jaxjoe]

Well well:

The bitchy new FireFox ( as of 3.6.3 ) has made cookie-control vanish ... the name does not exist on 1st/2nd level displays.

The **function** is now wrapped up in and obscured-by the "history" concept, conflating the HISTORY of a users-choices with the predation behavior of content suppliers. Why would a reasonable person make this conflation ? ANSWER: noone would !!

Why would the new cookie-control appear so purposefully un-intuitive ? I wonder where-is the money flowing ... that is always the proper concern when facing evident foolish choices by powerful institutions.

[Ex-Cyber]

Cookies aren't necessarily "predatory", but they are necessarily set by an associated host/domain, which means that they represent a kind of secondary history, particularly for any site that requires logging in. I agree that it's not intuitive to the average user, but it's not that ridiculous.

[jaxjoe]

A lawyers response ...

Cookies aren't necessarily "predatory", but they are necessarily set by an associated host/domain, which means that they represent a kind of secondary history, particularly for any site that requires logging in. I agree that it's not intuitive to the average user, but it's not that ridiculous.

Har har har ... What you say really is hilarious ... do you run a UTUBE comedy site? You give a clever "shysters" aka MOB-mouthpiece response. Do you break-legs and chop-thumbs on weekends for the Corsican goodfellaz ??

That's a complement - seriously -- if you're working for a sharky venture-capital company about to buy_out and "monetize" po po MOZ !
You want the truly outrageous and malevolent nuevo FireFox behavior to be viewed as only slightly geeky foibles. We know better ...