121–130 of 175 posts
uBlock Origin already has this. Enable the "Cookie notices" and "Annoyances" filters in uBlock Origin's settings. Bonus pro-tip: Firefox for Android supports uBlock Origin, which means you can get rid of these godawful banners on mobile, too. Only iOS users are stuck having to put up with them.
Hiding the popup is not the same as clicking reject. It should be but it's not.
Doesn't mean people implement it correctly though
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is only true in Europe - it is not required by the US privacy laws and the default most companies deal with will be set to implicit allow
I sort of assumed that companies wouldn't even show the cookie/tracking consent in areas where they are not legally required, but that's a good point.
Not because we're required, but because that's how the off the shelf cookie banner thing we use works, and better safe than sorry should a European access our US marketing site, i suppose.
I always figured most of the popups would reject cookies if hidden, if for no other reason that everyone is too lazy to modify the default behavior (and the default behavior is designed for EU regulations)
Brave does this by default and it works flawlessly apart from on fairly obscure websites (a lot of obscure websites don't have cookie notices anyway). I don't know why more people don't use Brave - you can turn all the annoying crypto/ad stuff off and it never bothers you about it again.
> So the omission of an acceptance should be on par with an explicit rejection I know that is says "should" but how common that practice is followed by the websites? And in that case, wouldn't blocking the entire popups like ublock origin does becomes better option than installing a new plugin?
Ublock does actually have an option to enable just hiding the popups.
In theory though, there's nothing requiring websites to actually treat a hidden pop-up as a rejection in the US, so i guess it doesn't hurt to explicitly reject instead.
These days, I apply the same filter to anything written with "vibe coding". If the nominal author didn't bother to write the code, I'm certainly not going to bother running it.
I encourage my rivals and enemies (if any exist) to screech about how I will surely fall behind the zeitgeist and immediately fire all their devs in favor of six MBAs and a team of coops to be exploited ruthlessly.
Cookie banners are a bad/wrong solution to the underlying problem, but it's the dark patterns within that really piss me off. I shouldn't have to invest deep cognitive attention to "only accept mandatory" but if you're not careful many dialogs will trick you into clicking accept all after you go to the trouble to untoggle all the optional shit. The answer is to use isolation containers, aggressively reset them and no…
I hate how web sites can weasel their way around consent by simply declaring their cookies as "necessary" or "mandatory." As the Dude would say: Yeah, well, that's just like, your opinion, man. How about we have an easy-to-use "Reject ALL cookies from this site (and deal with whatever breaks)" option?
There's zero weaseling going on. No dark patterns. I'm just too busy to build a no-cookie version that passes info in the URL or w/e (which also seems less than ideal). Your two options are to use the site or don't use the site. If there was enough pressure from real customers to provide another option then I probably would, but it wouldn't change anything. It's just busy work / checking boxes.
IMO this needs to be built into the browsers rather than being yet another tax on builders due to spammers / scammers / advertisers. If we had meta referencing each cookie where you can disclaim exactly how it will be used and whether it's optional / required, then we would have a standard without dark patterns being possible.
Love the idea. I wish chrome extensions had a more granular permissions structure and/or reminders/security checkups on installed extensions and their permissions. As it is the content scripts manifest permission for https://*/ * for content.js is always so jarring to see. For those that don’t know this allows the extension to run that script on every site you visit after clicking accept ONCE when you install the ext…
Definitely agree, not a fan of the permissions. The broad permissions were required from a usability standpoint. Granting permission on every site for this extension would just be a 1 to 1 replacement of clicking reject on the banner or pop up for every site. I would hope that before Chrome approves an extension to be added to the store that they are auditing the content of package.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I hate how web sites can weasel their way around consent by simply declaring their cookies as "necessary" or "mandatory." As the Dude would say: Yeah, well, that's just like, your opinion, man. How about we have an easy-to-use "Reject ALL cookies from this site (and deal with whatever breaks)" option?
You're assuming maliciousness. I run a site that uses cookies (encrypted session cookie) so they can add items to a cart, because not doing so would be a horrible UI. There's also a cookie created by the payment processor, but I only load their script on checkout. There's nothing else though. I don't even use tracking / analytics. There's zero weaseling going on. No dark patterns. I'm just too busy to build a no-cook…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're assuming maliciousness. I run a site that uses cookies (encrypted session cookie) so they can add items to a cart, because not doing so would be a horrible UI. There's also a cookie created by the payment processor, but I only load their script on checkout. There's nothing else though. I don't even use tracking / analytics. There's zero weaseling going on. No dark patterns. I'm just too busy to build a no-cook…
Session cookies don't require a banner or any kind of notification.