Odd, my post here disappeared... I'll just rewrite it.
It sounds like a very small minority would get into trouble with this.
You never even bothered verifying that this software has this issue, if you even bothered, you would realize that a lot of other sign on solutions are at risk too. Instead you waste everyone's time, noh8rz10. You even wasted the reader's time by not bothering to verify anything here.
I'm having to add to my examples because you changed the requirements, I felt something that really personally effects me was sufficient because you didn't bother posting your requirement where this is meant to effect some wide spread amount of users. So fine, I will humour you and tell you one more but this is the last time I accept your moving of goal posts in this conversation. But you have wasted my time too, noh8rz10.
Posting YouTube comments will not work without 3rd party cookies and you can bet there are plenty of other websites that have similar issues.
As I see it now, I have now fulfilled your prerequisite of:
Please demonstrate any problems with default 3rd party blocking, other than advertising and tracking. Specific sites and examples.
everyone else benefits from advanced protection
This is not advanced protection, this is a very simple protection, something that even existed in the 90s. In fact, it was disabled by default because it broke single sign on systems from Yahoo and broke certain embedding of content. You're claims are just going to lead people into a false sense of security. The reality is that someone whom wants to be nefarious can still track people using other methods, off the top of my head... Storing identifiers in RGB values through HTML5 canvas, storing identifiers through HTML5 session storage, storing identifiers through HTML5 local storage, storing identifiers through HTML5 global storage, storing identifiers through HTML5 database storage, storing identifiers through userData storage, storing identifiers through window.name caching, soring idenfitiers through Local Shared Objects, storing identifiers through isolated storage, storing identifiers through web history, storing identifiers through etags, storing identifiers through web cache, storing identifiers throughg HTTP authentication caching, verifying identity through font availability and plugin setup. And that's just the stuff I remember off the top of my head to track someone through webbrowsers using more nefarious methods.
Safari does it right; this is why google had to hack the browsers.
Safari does this right.. By setting a false sense of security and then adding a feature where website owners can override the setting by telling the browser "yeah, you can trust me"... Yeah, no.