Most active commenters
  • tonymet(3)
  • coldpie(3)

←back to thread

Analysis of economic and productivity losses caused by cookie banners in Europe

(legiscope.com)
332 points vegasbrianc | 11 comments | 14 Nov 24 22:23 UTC | HN request time: 1.017s | source | bottom
Show context
coldpie ◴[14 Nov 24 22:44 UTC] 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 #
1. tonymet ◴[14 Nov 24 22:45 UTC] 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 #
2. coldpie ◴[14 Nov 24 22:46 UTC] No.42142025[source]▶
So use Firefox.
replies(1): >>42142158 #
3. ravenstine ◴[14 Nov 24 22:53 UTC] No.42142094[source]▶
Those resources are well spent.
replies(1): >>42142163 #
4. elashri ◴[14 Nov 24 22:55 UTC] 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.

5. wil421 ◴[14 Nov 24 22:56 UTC] 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.
6. tonymet ◴[14 Nov 24 22:59 UTC] No.42142158[source]▶
tell that to the billion internet users who suffer from cookie banners. I'm talking about the network effect.
replies(2): >>42142301 #>>42142319 #
7. tonymet ◴[14 Nov 24 23:00 UTC] No.42142163[source]▶
my point is that it's not "fixed". The issue plagues 99.9% of internet users.
8. wtetzner ◴[14 Nov 24 23:16 UTC] No.42142301{3}[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.

9. coldpie ◴[14 Nov 24 23:17 UTC] No.42142319{3}[source]▶
I do tell them that. I can't help everyone, but I can help some.
10. barryrandall ◴[15 Nov 24 14:47 UTC] No.42147379[source]▶
But it's not the only browser. The popularity of a particular form of foolishness does not diminish its foolishness.
11. consteval ◴[15 Nov 24 20:16 UTC] 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.