Most active commenters
  • coldpie(5)
  • tonymet(3)
  • cluckindan(3)
  • seeknotfind(3)

←back to thread

332 points vegasbrianc | 50 comments | | HN request time: 1.291s | source | bottom
1. coldpie ◴[] No.42141996[source]
Hop into your uBlock Origin settings and enable the Cookie Banner filters. Fixed. Enable the Annoyances filters too, while you're in there.

If you're on iOS, the Kill Sticky bookmarklet does a decent job of cleaning these up without breaking most sites: https://www.smokingonabike.com/2024/01/20/take-back-your-web...

replies(7): >>42142012 #>>42142024 #>>42142091 #>>42142152 #>>42142175 #>>42142649 #>>42143401 #
2. tonymet ◴[] No.42142012[source]
content-based adblocking requires tremendous resources, and no longer works in Chrome, which is the primary browser.
replies(6): >>42142025 #>>42142094 #>>42142116 #>>42142127 #>>42147379 #>>42150460 #
3. diggan ◴[] No.42142024[source]
> Hop into your uBlock Origin settings and enable the Cookie Banner filters (and enable the Annoyances filters too, while you're in there). Fixed.

Except for the pesky sites that somehow disable (or rather "not enable") certain things until you've "answered" the banner. Can't remember what site I hit that on most recently, but I had to disable uBlock, reload the page, click "Deny", and then the video/element worked.

replies(1): >>42142153 #
4. coldpie ◴[] No.42142025[source]
So use Firefox.
replies(1): >>42142158 #
5. al_borland ◴[] No.42142091[source]
I use Hush on iOS.
replies(1): >>42142106 #
6. ravenstine ◴[] No.42142094[source]
Those resources are well spent.
replies(1): >>42142163 #
7. coldpie ◴[] No.42142106[source]
Oh nice, thanks. I'll give that a shot.
8. elashri ◴[] No.42142116[source]
> content-based adblocking requires tremendous resources

That's not true. On average any overhead in browsing performance introduced by ad blocking is compensated by the elimination of tracking and ads elements of the pages. It saves bandwidth and are better for UX. We can argue about business models but claiming it requires tremendous resources is not true.

And content-based ad blocking still works in chrome but in much more limited capability compared to superior browser like Firefox.

9. wil421 ◴[] No.42142127[source]
Switched to edge at work and Safari at home/mobile hasn't been a huge issue. Firefox is my secondary. Although I no longer do much web debugging, the switch from edge to chrome wasn't too painful.
10. jtbayly ◴[] No.42142152[source]
The most recent iOS (18) introduced a feature that lets you hide distracting things on the page. (Tap left side of the url field and select “Hide distracting items.” Then just tap what you want to remove and hit done.) I believe that they will stay hidden next time you visit the site.

Regardless, I use Hush and another blocker and it has still come in very handy several times already, so I thought others would want to know about it.

11. cluckindan ◴[] No.42142153[source]
And by hitting that ”deny” button, you have ”consented” to hundreds if not thousands of data brokers around the world processing all your personal data gathered throughout your life across all your devices. They can now freely buy your data from other brokers to enrich their profile of you.

Should have unchecked those 973 legitimate interest checkboxes they hid under the ”affiliates” or ”vendors” or ”providers” or whatever.

Next, they will resell that profile to political campaigns, advertisers, law enforcement, private dicks and security providers, the military, foreign intelligence services and drug cartel hit squads, to name a few. You could buy it too! Or your friends, enemies, neighbors, colleagues, bosses…

replies(1): >>42142173 #
12. tonymet ◴[] No.42142158{3}[source]
tell that to the billion internet users who suffer from cookie banners. I'm talking about the network effect.
replies(2): >>42142301 #>>42142319 #
13. tonymet ◴[] No.42142163{3}[source]
my point is that it's not "fixed". The issue plagues 99.9% of internet users.
14. immibis ◴[] No.42142173{3}[source]
If they're doing that after you clicked Deny, the government can come down hard on them. Sadly, only the government - individuals can't sue companies for GDPR violations.
replies(4): >>42142194 #>>42142226 #>>42143292 #>>42150531 #
15. serial_dev ◴[] No.42142175[source]
While I appreciate your workarounds, the issue is not fixed. Almost everyone is going to keep clicking these stupid banners. It’s not okay, it’s not fixed until the rules are adjusted and we have less tracking and’s less pointless banners.
replies(3): >>42142205 #>>42142290 #>>42142296 #
16. cluckindan ◴[] No.42142194{4}[source]
Legitimate interest checkboxes are technically not asking for consent, they are considered informational. OneTrust popups are especially inflammatory in this regard.
replies(1): >>42144527 #
17. seeknotfind ◴[] No.42142205[source]
So many pop-ups these days, for every little thing. Tracking. OS permissions. Browser permissions. Take a survey. Speak to our AI assistant. Do you agree to this. Donate. Sign up. Pay. So many clicks. Used to be viruses, but we have the same result with our complexity.
replies(2): >>42142279 #>>42144325 #
18. dietr1ch ◴[] No.42142226{4}[source]
Yeah right, legalized bribery means the elected leaders have priorities other than citizens.
19. deprecative ◴[] No.42142279{3}[source]
It's not complex. It's simple. It's greed. It's absolutely ridiculous that we as a species put up with all of this nonsense because we have a faulty foundational understanding of what is and should be normal. The brain rot that we've subjected ourselves to is absolutely ludicrous.
replies(1): >>42149849 #
20. freeone3000 ◴[] No.42142290[source]
So remove the consent exception against tracking? Simply make it illegal, banner or no?
replies(3): >>42143599 #>>42144203 #>>42144578 #
21. coldpie ◴[] No.42142296[source]
You're right, but I can't fix that. What I can do is help HN readers who didn't know about that filter list. Maybe they can help the people they know.
replies(1): >>42144328 #
22. wtetzner ◴[] No.42142301{4}[source]
I'd think anyone capable of installing an adblocker in Chrome would be able to install Firefox + an adblocker.

Obviously it would be better if adblocking wasn't required in the first place.

23. coldpie ◴[] No.42142319{4}[source]
I do tell them that. I can't help everyone, but I can help some.
24. whazor ◴[] No.42142649[source]
Filters are unreliable, it is better to have the cookies banners automatically filled out via Consent-O-Matic: https://consentomatic.au.dk/

Which works on Chrome, Firefox and iOS.

The best part is that you can actually specify your preferences, but globally for all websites. I actually prefer to have the functionality cookies enabled.

25. tzs ◴[] No.42143292{4}[source]
Article 79 [1] gives individuals a right to sue for GDPR violations.

[1] https://gdpr-info.eu/art-79-gdpr/

replies(2): >>42143638 #>>42144513 #
26. chatmasta ◴[] No.42143401[source]
Since when do bookmarklets work on iOS? How exactly do I use that?
replies(1): >>42143490 #
27. xk_id ◴[] No.42143490[source]
I just figured it out. You bookmark a normal website. Then you go to your bookmarks and edit the new entry you created; you can then change the URL to the javascript code. Finally, to activate the bookmarklet you have to tap on the address bar and then manually browse to the bookmark entry (it doesn’t work if you just type its name in the address bar and press Go, or if you select it from the suggestions list).
28. aziaziazi ◴[] No.42143599{3}[source]
It’s not a tracking banner but a cookie banner and some applications have a legitimate need for cookies. They abuse what is legitimate, but you can’t ask regulators to check every site without a national (European?) white liste firewall (shouldn’t give them ideas…).

Also, most tracking used to use cookies but if that becomes illegal there’s others ways.

replies(1): >>42143627 #
29. idle_zealot ◴[] No.42143627{4}[source]
Cookies necessary to function properly don't require consent. It's only optional ones (ones that benefit the site, not the user).
replies(1): >>42143941 #
30. aziaziazi ◴[] No.42143638{5}[source]
That’s inspiring.

Let’s team up the pissed off individuals and raid-sue one of the obviously abusing. One is nothing, but that could at least make more visibility of the borderline legality. And at best we win and go to the next one.

Any law-worker?

31. creer ◴[] No.42143941{5}[source]
And these (optional ones) don't require a banner.
replies(1): >>42144130 #
32. PittleyDunkin ◴[] No.42144130{6}[source]
How do you figure? How does the user opt in or out without an option to opt in or out?
replies(1): >>42144137 #
33. creer ◴[] No.42144137{7}[source]
the same way that they interact with any other web page? which never need banners? You don't need a banner to opt in or out (or ignore).

By this I mean the law is what it is but the implementation is deliberately hurting the visitors in the hope that they will click "yeah sure whatever" to be let through to the content. The harm does not come from the legislation but is deliberately anti-user by the web site owner. (Fine, in some cases it might be out of the box and merely lazy.)

replies(1): >>42146441 #
34. serial_dev ◴[] No.42144203{3}[source]
I don’t know how to fix it, but I know it isn’t fixed now. We have both tracking and cookie banners.
35. Gud ◴[] No.42144325{3}[source]
Most of them I don’t get because I don’t use a user hostile operating system.

And it’s not really complexity, it’s deliberate choices being made.

The internet used to be run by technologists.

Now it’s run by project managers and web monkeys

36. Gud ◴[] No.42144328{3}[source]
I’m happy! I didn’t know about it! Thx
37. robin_reala ◴[] No.42144513{5}[source]
One of my favourite HN threads is Confiks exercising his GDPR rights under the threat of litigation against Spotify: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24764371
38. robin_reala ◴[] No.42144527{5}[source]
Legitimate interest can absolutely be opted-out of:

(f) processing is necessary for the purposes of the legitimate interests pursued by the controller or by a third party, except where such interests are overridden by the interests or fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject which require protection of personal data, in particular where the data subject is a child.

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/679/oj#006.001

replies(2): >>42144574 #>>42147827 #
39. cluckindan ◴[] No.42144574{6}[source]
Yes, by unchecking the 973 hidden checkboxes.
40. ikekkdcjkfke ◴[] No.42144578{3}[source]
Do Not Track header? It's the silver bullet but the stakeholders will argue it is invalid and cannot possibly be used to inform the server that the client wishes not to be tracked
replies(1): >>42144725 #
41. Earw0rm ◴[] No.42144725{4}[source]
Someone needs to put a stake in those stakeholders.
replies(1): >>42146282 #
42. account42 ◴[] No.42146282{5}[source]
The only way to permanently rid yourself of information vampires.
43. PittleyDunkin ◴[] No.42146441{8}[source]
Right but that's not optional cookies functioning at all, that's simply rejecting them altogether. Why not just say that? It's also a much easier sentiment to agree with than these confusing semantics about optional cookies working fine if you just ignore the banner.
44. barryrandall ◴[] No.42147379[source]
But it's not the only browser. The popularity of a particular form of foolishness does not diminish its foolishness.
45. immibis ◴[] No.42147827{6}[source]
That doesn't say you can opt out. It says sometimes legitimate interests aren't enough. For example, as a hypothetical service provider I have a legitimate interest in tracking your GPS location everywhere you go, because it helps me predict what kind of service my customers like based on where they live and work. However, your right to not be tracked is more important, so I can't use my legitimate interest to justify the tracking in this case.
46. seeknotfind ◴[] No.42149849{4}[source]
You can always find disagreement if you look for it. Maybe this is your thing, given user name, your account makes an interesting study on it. Though in this case, I wouldn't be so reductive. Not all complexity (I ascribe to the result) is due to bad intentions (e.g. greed). There's also the EU GDPR trying to protect kids. AI assistant might be a tool to try to help users. If you want to simplify the cause here, how about a lack of focus or failure to tame the complexity of the world with our technologies, or tendency to add rather than delete?
replies(1): >>42151472 #
47. consteval ◴[] No.42150460[source]
> content-based adblocking requires tremendous resources

I don't have the evidence with me, but from what I've seen content-based blocking actually saves resources, both load times and memory. It's because Ads are not actually free or even cheap, you have to make a third-party request, load some content and JavaScript. So, if you spend a little to find and block those requests, you end up saving resources on average.

48. franga2000 ◴[] No.42150531{4}[source]
So effectively, they're in the clear. The law also say not opting in should be as clear and asy as opting in, yet that is the case approximately 0% of the time.
49. deprecative ◴[] No.42151472{5}[source]
Why do we need to protect kids? Greed. Why do we need AI to help people? Greed.

It's not complex. There are complex things but understanding the cause of business doing business is not complex. It's simple.

replies(1): >>42189608 #
50. seeknotfind ◴[] No.42189608{6}[source]
If you break things down in this way, the result is discontent, not a solution.