Live data from Hacker News

Hush: Noiseless Browsing for Safari

daringfireball.net

71–80 of 90 posts

Re: Hush: Noiseless Browsing for Safari

#71
post #2

uBlock Origin has a few lists that disable annoyances. They are disabled by default, but they're arguably the most important lists. It's weird to borrow someone's laptop, and see a barrage of ads, notices, bars and other visual spam.

uBlock Origin does not work on Safari so this statement is irrelevant.

Re: Hush: Noiseless Browsing for Safari

#72

I've been using "I don't care about cookies" for years now https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/i-dont-care-a... It's fantastic. Browsing the web on my iPhone, I feel like slaying myself. Current state of the web is just fucking annoying.

AdGuard is available on iOS too. It's using the same list as the one from the article (plus a few more).

Re: Hush: Noiseless Browsing for Safari

#73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But virtually every site I visit is tracking me. It doesn't change the fact that they're tracking me, it just makes me click an "X" or "OK" every damned time I visit some new site to read an article or something. I could understand your argument if sites were actually removing tracking in order not to annoy users with the popup. But sites aren't doing that, not in any meaningful number at all. So it's not having any…

Before cookie banners were required, do you think the average user would have any idea how many sites were tracking them? I don't think they did. It's beneficial if only to increase public awareness, because tracking is otherwise invisible. Heck, I'm a reasonably technical user, and I wouldn't have noticed in most cases. Again, invisible. Now I have a negative first impression of a site if it annoys me with cookie ba…

And what difference does it make if we now know we are being tracked?

Re: Hush: Noiseless Browsing for Safari

#74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The EU used the force and threat of law to force everyone to do it.

The EU used the force and threat of law to force everyone who already should have been doing it to do it. A bunch of other people just jumped on the bandwagon.

It's a bit puzzling, why would you add an annoying banner for 'fashion' purposes? It's more work and if you don't believe it's useful (in this case to shield yourself from potential legal trouble) why would you do it?

Re: Hush: Noiseless Browsing for Safari

#75

Is there any work being done to revert the requirements of cookie banners, age consent, etc? These are all utterly pointless and easy to bypass. While we're at it, get rid of the forced "piracy is harmful" ads on every media disc too. Pirates don't actually see these messages, they're stripped out in the final copy, so the actual legal customers are the only one suffering through it as they can't be skipped either wi…

Do Not Track should have been made legally binding. Hell, with any sane interpretation of GDPR it would be.

Re: Hush: Noiseless Browsing for Safari

#76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

May be better to report it to Fanboy. This app seem to be almost entirely based on it. Doing so helps many more users than those of this app. Are improvements upstreamed or does it just piggyback? https://github.com/oblador/hush/tree/master/data

Good point. If you are already using an adblocker and are interested in this then you can just ad the fanboy list from easylist to your adblocker.

Fanboy's Annoyance should already have what Fanboy's Cookiemonster List has. And, it's one of the default, but not activated, lists in uBlock Origin.

Note that neither Safari nor Chrome are good choices if you want an effective adblocker these days.

Firefox, use it.

Re: Hush: Noiseless Browsing for Safari

#77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But virtually every site I visit is tracking me. It doesn't change the fact that they're tracking me, it just makes me click an "X" or "OK" every damned time I visit some new site to read an article or something. I could understand your argument if sites were actually removing tracking in order not to annoy users with the popup. But sites aren't doing that, not in any meaningful number at all. So it's not having any…

Before cookie banners were required, do you think the average user would have any idea how many sites were tracking them? I don't think they did. It's beneficial if only to increase public awareness, because tracking is otherwise invisible. Heck, I'm a reasonably technical user, and I wouldn't have noticed in most cases. Again, invisible. Now I have a negative first impression of a site if it annoys me with cookie ba…

Except now it feels like a California Prop 65 warning that you see on literally every business. “Something in here may cause cancer. Is it a bottle of toilet cleaner locked in the supply closet? Is it benzene in the hummus? Who knows!”

Re: Hush: Noiseless Browsing for Safari

#78
post #2

uBlock Origin has a few lists that disable annoyances. They are disabled by default, but they're arguably the most important lists. It's weird to borrow someone's laptop, and see a barrage of ads, notices, bars and other visual spam.

> It's weird to borrow someone's laptop, and see a barrage of ads, notices, bars and other visual spam.

"Hey you should be using an ad blocker, it avoid ads and viruses, and makes websites faster. Do you mind if I install you one?"

Re: Hush: Noiseless Browsing for Safari

#79

I've been using "I don't care about cookies" for years now https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/i-dont-care-a... It's fantastic. Browsing the web on my iPhone, I feel like slaying myself. Current state of the web is just fucking annoying.

Also available as an adblock list: https://www.i-dont-care-about-cookies.eu/

Re: Hush: Noiseless Browsing for Safari

#80

Is there any work being done to revert the requirements of cookie banners, age consent, etc? These are all utterly pointless and easy to bypass. While we're at it, get rid of the forced "piracy is harmful" ads on every media disc too. Pirates don't actually see these messages, they're stripped out in the final copy, so the actual legal customers are the only one suffering through it as they can't be skipped either wi…

I think the cookie banner requirements are just fine: they're only required if sites are tracking you. It's a good sign that if I'm on a site that's not bothering me with a cookie banner, it's respecting my privacy: https://github.blog/2020-12-17-no-cookie-for-you/ Making the widespread surveillance that was previously invisible visible (and annoying) seems like a good move to me.

They’re ok but they should be more precise:

1. Require websites to be concise and offer a yes/no ONLY.

2. Reverse-lobby browser vendors to turn this into an API.

3. Require everyone to use the API.

Now users can block or accept all requests at once like they can block or accept Notification requests.

Post reply on HN