663
ublock Origin can get rid of Cookie Banners (www.kevinthetechguy.ca)
submitted 10 months ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
72 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 69 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 289 points 10 months ago* (8 children)

Tired of those annoying cookie banners? They’re not just frustrating—they're a lazy response to GDPR.

They’re not lazy, they’re maliciously compliant. The sites know how to comply with GDPR, but wanted to throw a fit instead. So they came up with the annoying cookie banners, to make users hate GDPR instead of hating the sites that were stealing and selling all of their data. And the worst part is that it worked. Many people wholly equate GDPR with the cookie banners, instead of the massive leap in privacy rights that it represented when it was passed.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 28 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    Excellent points, but the cookie banners were a response to the ePrivacy Directive, not GDPR. In fact the banners predate GDPR by about a decade! I know this because I decided to make my own banner that was slightly less annoying about five years before GDPR was a thing.

    Funnily enough most of your points are still correct precisely because, as you say, "most people wholly equate GDPR with the cookie banners".

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 49 points 10 months ago* (3 children)

    It's a lot easier to dislike GDPR when you don't live in a country that benefits from it, but it still annoys you.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [+] -22 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    no one benefits from it (at least from the part regarding cookies, which i am honestly not sure is part of gdpr)

    before that, you just dealt with cookies with whatever cookie extension you preferred. now you would have to trust the site to store your rejection in a cookie, because guess what happens next time you visit the site when it doesn't find any cookie.

    and these fucking dialogs are hard to get rid off even with ublock origin.

    so it is definitely the case of road to hell paved with good intentions.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
    • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (1 child)

    This is not correct. Since gdpr isn't required in most of the world, they don't want to comply. It's not about making users hate them. It's about collecting data, and simply complying with gdpr where they have to, and only where they have to.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
    • [–] 173 points 10 months ago* (18 children)

    uBlock Origin can also get rid of Shorts in Youtube, as well as the hover-play functionaliy, and annotations on videos.

    Just paste this into your uBlock Origin settings/myFilters:

    ! Kill YT Shorts
youtube.com##ytd-reel-shelf-renderer
youtube.com##.html5-endscreen-content
youtube.com##.html5-endscreen
youtube.com##.ytp-ce-element
youtube.com###video-preview-container
annotations_module.js$script,domain=youtube.com
/endscreen.js$script,domain=www.youtube.com****
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 18 child comments
    •
  • [–] 19 points 10 months ago* (2 children)

    Does that kill just shorts or everything you mentioned in your comment?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 13 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    I thought hover play functionality can be turned off in youtube settings?

    But as I was typing this, I realised it's useful for non logged in youtube, I assume.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -4 points 10 months ago (9 children)

    Huh. I love shorts. I have a curated YouTube account that shows me very interesting shorts about science, music, gaming, comedy, PC building, web development, tech news, etc etc. I wonder why people don't like shorts. Using YouTube without being logged in?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    Shorts are deliberately and effectively addictive. Once Google found out they could copy the TikTok paradigm without being sued, they forced it down everyone's throat. Ever wonder why you can't disable shorts? Because they KNOW it's addictive. We are being farmed.

    YouTube is a vital tool for news and information. It should be NATIONALIZED, and purposefully exploitative technology like shorts should be BANNED.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago

    I agree with everything you said, to some degree. I'm just saying that shorts on my account are great, because I've honed my algorithm over many years so that it only gives me relevant stuff. I never see anything I don't want to see, basically. My Watch Later list overfloweth. 😅

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago (5 children)

    it's mostly the interface, the layout, the clickbaityness the format encourages, and the fact that no useful information can fit in that short a video.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago* (1 child)

    idk with the old shorts this was more true, but now if it's like a quick tips thing or just a preview of a longer video, so long as you're not scrolling shorts and only scarcely engage with the more informative ones, they seem to have a place. Youtube pushes them to be infinitely scrolled clickbait garbage though so that's probably the experience for 95% of people.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago* (2 children)

    the fact that no useful information can fit in that short a video.

    Have to disagree with the notion that this is a fact. I watch informative and interesting shorts all the time. Plenty out there if you have the right subscriptions and are careful with how you use the service.

    E.g. you must never scroll shorts. Watch the ones you want to see, then back out, so you never see anything that pollutes your account history.

    If you see something you don't like, put a negative vote on it, maybe even click "don't see this account again" or whatever it's called. And vice versa, upvote and subscribe to stuff you like.

    It requires some effort but for me it's worth the interesting content.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (1 child)

    Alphabet is known to mess around with the algorithms so you'll always get disgusting Nazi shit in your suggestions sooner or later. Also, a lot of people can't back out of doom-scrolling, because of bad impulse control (people with ADHD for example). And even if there's something informative in there. It will always lack a lot of information. It's like merely reading the headline of an article and then going into the comments, claiming you know everything about the topic (happens on Lemmy a lot).

    It's nice that you seem to have a grip on these shorts, but it's even greater that you can use certain tools to eradicate them. On my mobile phone I use YouTube revanced and on Firefox/waterfox I use Tweaks for YouTube. With the latter you can also change the thumbnail size and grid the way you want so you don't have to cope with the ridiculously large thumbnails.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago

    I do not get Nazi content lol. Sometimes I'll see some right wing shit on there but I just go in and press "don't recommend this channel" on all those before even watching it. It's been a long time now since I've seen a recommendation that doesn't suit me.

    But yeah, not everyone can control YouTube, or themselves, like I can. All I'm saying is that I like shorts. I do agree that they can be dangerous. 😅

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 153 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    I've used uBlock Origin for years, but the dev doesn't accept donations because he doesn't want an obligation to support the software ongoing. This means I cannot support him even though it would come with no expectations, just thanks.

    So thank you for your hard work Raymond Hill/gorhill You're amazing, doing your part to make the world a better place.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
    • [–] [S] 73 points 10 months ago (13 children)

    I did not know that I already had the tool in my hands.

    uBlock Origin is the best ad blocker imaginable.

    But it can do something I always wanted: Get rid of cookie popups (but without acception them automatically).

    Visiting a new website and being able to read the content directly feels so weird, although it should be normal.

    I hope, EU legislation will force websites to accept a global "Auto-decline"/"Minimum-possible" configurable in the web browser, in which case no banner can be shown. IMO, that's how it should have always been.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
  • [–] 56 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    I hope, EU legislation will force websites to accept a global “Auto-decline”/“Minimum-possible” configurable in the web browser, in which case no banner can be shown. IMO, that’s how it should have always been.

    The banner is a stupid solution. Tracking and ad profiles should be completely banned instead.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 5 points 10 months ago

    Yeah. The idea that tracking should require explicit consent sounds pretty good at first, but we now the result is that users are constantly nagged and harassed and annoyed until they finally "consent" - at which point everything becomes silky smooth.

    So yeah, I agree that this kind of thing should be simply banned, to remove any inconvenience or confusion from the whole thing.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 21 points 10 months ago (5 children)

    There is also "consent o matic", banner does appear but go away in less than a second and auto decline as possible. Does not work on 100% of website but still does a good job.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    The AdBlock blocklist does accept cookie banners without concenting to tracking, when possible.

    Check out the rules. It doesn't just zap the overlay, it executes some custom js for every site.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    adblock? is that the one that accepts money for whitelisting adds? :D

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
    • [–] 34 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    Why does this page have a cookie banner and an annoying modal to sign up to some stupid mailing list?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
    • [–] 49 points 10 months ago (1 child)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
    • [–] 16 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    An article about annoying pop-ups immediately prompts you with a pop-up. Get the fuck outta here.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
    • [–] 8 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    What's a cookie banner?

    I must have Element Zapped it the first time I saw one and never seen one since

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    Usually anything related to GDPR.
    I believe California has a similar law framework.

    Essentially websites are obligated to ask for consent of storing cookies.
    Usually they can be denied and you won't have a personalized experience (e.g. dark mode wont be persistent between page visits) but it should not prevent you from viewing.
    It's just companies will pressure you into accepting them by utilizing dark patterns and try to coax you into accepting the most privacy invasive options (and selling your data to >500 advertisers)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 10 months ago

    My favorite new dark pattern is the one where the website forces you to either accept the cookies or pay/subscribe.

    There seems to be some argument around whether this is technically legal or not, it seems to worm its way around the written guidelines just enough but certainly goes against the spirit of it.

    The fact that "Reject All" is an option, has always been an option, gives the game away entirely.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago

    In fact, functional cookies, that are only used for page functionality, like remembering your dark mode preference on the site itself, does not require consent under GDPR. Consent is only required for tracking cookies: cookies that are used to identify you (and then usually to remember what you've looked at, purchased before, etc).

    Unfortunately, because the law is not entirely clear, and because a lot of people don't know exactly what cookies are or do, even sites that don't even have tracking cookies have added consent banners just in case. And sites that don't care have added banners without an equally visible "reject all" button, the absence of which doesn't even make them compliant (but probably enough that they feel they can claim they thought they were).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • [–] 5 points 10 months ago (12 children)

    Website operators don't want to have to display cookie banners and users don't want to see them. So what are we doing?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 33 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    Website operators don't want to have to display cookie banners

    This is false. If they didn't want to display the banners they could literally remove them, there's absolutely nothing requiring them as long as they don't track your behavior. They refuse to give up tracking so they add the banners to annoy visitors and hopefully trick some of them into accidentally opting into tracking. It's an abusive manipulation of a loophole in the GDPR. If they really hated the banners they could just not track you but they rather make it your problem.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 4 points 10 months ago*

    "trick some of them accidentally" is definitely underestimating average users. In my experience 95% + of all users click consent once, all is stored forever and they'll never see the banner again, for sure not on the same device. They don't do adblocking, no automatic cookie deleting, in fact no browser extensions at all. The average fediverse user is a weird mix of a 1990's internet poweruser with a today tech kid trying to make it into the future technologies on their own terms and by faaaar not an average user visiting average website on average devices with average browsers and configurations. In short: most people don't experience this 'problem' like us, because they consent by default to anything you throw at them and are then in the gated tracking paradise where there's barely any cookienagging, visiting the same handful of websites all the time anyway.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 10 months ago

    If website operators didn't want to ask for consent, they should stop trying to profit for your behavioral data. But they want to sell your data and have de it from you. That's the only thing not allowed. There are plenty of sites that use cookies and don't need to show a consent banner.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    I'd honestly be so much happier if it was a permission request similar to e.g. accessing location or microphone access, for a number of reasons:

    • would be easier to manage as it would end up being a single interface handled by the browser instead of a per-website implementation
    • no differently worded, intentionally vague bullshit options that are designed to entrap the user
    • no struggle finding the enable/disable option after clicking either accept or decline
    • the ability to automatically provide a default answer that gets around to the fucking popup blocking 2/3 of the page
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    Browsers already have the do not track header, it should just honor that. If you have that set it should be an automatic opt out no banner necessary.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] [S] 4 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    Website operators don’t want to have to display cookie banners and users don’t want to see them. So what are we doing?

    Like the other comment, I also disagree with that. Most websites show them to make it hard to decline the tracking.

    But I once saw a website (I think, it was the German idealo.de) which checked for the (now deprecated) "Do Not Track" HTTP header. If it was there, it then did not show the banner. I liked that solution.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago*

    It'd be nice if that header was default for all users, unfortunately it can (and has, probably) end up being just another data point for uniquely identifying you.

    Probably will never be default since 99% people use Chrome, and we know who owns that..

    Extensions seem the only way without making your traffic more unique.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -12 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    This is the EU's law, "See how much we did to protect you!" It security theatre.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 20 points 10 months ago*

    Ah yes the classic "You're making me hit you, I don't want to, but you're making me do this". Maybe instead of blaming the flawed attempt at protecting you from abuse you instead blame the ones doing the abusing.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (1 reply)
    [+] -6 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 child)

    Substack blogs fund Nazi enablers. Don’t give substack clicks

    https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/07/substacks-nazi-problem-wont-go-away-after-push-notification-apology/

    https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/11/substack-extremism-nazi-white-supremacy-newsletters/676156/

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •