Submitted 4 hours ago by lemmydividebyzero@reddthat.com to technology@lemmy.world
https://www.kevinthetechguy.ca/p/quick-tip-how-to-get-rid-of-annoying-cookie-banners
uBlock Origin can also get rid of Shorts in Youtube, as well as the hover-play functionaliy.
! 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****
Does that kill just shorts or everything you mentioned in your post?
Everything in the comment. They’re all pretty well described if you wanted to pick-and-choose.
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.
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.
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.
I don’t like consent’o’matic it plays a slow anination and takes nearly a full second
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.
adblock? is that the one that accepts money for whitelisting adds? :D
An article about annoying pop-ups immediately prompts you with a pop-up. Get the fuck outta here.
Website operators don’t want to have to display cookie banners and users don’t want to see them. So what are we doing?
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.
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:
Websites did it to themselves by abusing cookies to track users. Instead of consent popups though, the EU should have just blanket banned tracking in general.
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.
This is the EU’s law, “See how much we did to protect you!” It security theatre.
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 sites you instead blame the ones doing the abusing.
It’s nice, but sometimes it breaks websites. Some sites don’t work if you don’t click on the banner first. So if you encounter a website that seems frozen, try disabing uBlock for a second
i don’t think you need to school ublock users ;)
Substack blogs fun’s Nazi enablers. Don’t give substack clicks
mic_check_one_two@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 hours ago
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.
Kissaki@feddit.org 1 hour ago
Often times they’re not even compliant.
chunes@lemmy.world 2 hours ago
Well, it worked. I don’t even live in a GDPR country so I shouldn’t have to be annoyed because of it
14th_cylon@lemmy.zip 1 hour ago
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.