21–30 of 147 posts
I believe ublock origin blocks these via the annoyances filters, but just the popup element without setting the cookie. I haven't really looked into it.
I believe ublock origin blocks these via the annoyances filters, but just the popup element without setting the cookie. I haven't really looked into it.
It absolutely can't block the more advanced, sometimes multi-stage prompts Google, Youtube, and many newspapers use. Consent-o-Matic actually goes through those prompts and declines the maximum possible amount of tracking, while consenting to the necessary options required to make the site work.
I've been using the annoyingly-named superagent for a while for the same task, but it often seems to fail to detect some of these annoying boxes. I'll definitely give this alternative a try and see if it works any better. Thank you so very, very much to the EU and whatever other government agencies are responsible for making the web more annoying to use. https://super-agent.com/
> Thank you so very, very much to the EU and whatever other government agencies are responsible for making the web more annoying to use. They didn’t make the web annoying – advertisers did. They were the ones who chose the most annoying way to comply with the laws.
Sadly the ePrivacy implementations were a bit lacking in some member states and the EU directive to replace them with a direct EU-wide law doesn't seem to be fully in effect just yet but I have high hopes we'll see companies fined over these deliberate misdirections soon and that will hopefully put an end to it.
I believe ublock origin blocks these via the annoyances filters, but just the popup element without setting the cookie. I haven't really looked into it.
It blocks some of them, usually the most basic. I also seem to remember that by not answering those prompts (and hiding them instead), you actually consent until you decline. It absolutely can't block the more advanced, sometimes multi-stage prompts Google, Youtube, and many newspapers use. Consent-o-Matic actually goes through those prompts and declines the maximum possible amount of tracking, while consenting to th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Regarding 2: That's the fun part! Manual consent isn't required for functional cookies, only for marketing garbage that doesn't help you at all.
What if the goal of the site is to monetize views so it is economically viable to produce content? Then GP's point towards 'it should work better' implies it works over the long-term and not a single interaction. I find ads frustrating as well, but it is a powerful monetization strategy and that doesn't have a substitute.
The reason is that so long as some sites show tracking ads, the monetization possible by privacy-friendly ads is almost nothing.
The long term goal must be that no one cheats, so that ad the revenue from well-behaving advertising can go up.
Remember the consent dialogs aren’t ever asking permission to show ads.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Preferences and other things required for site to work do not require a consent.
Some preferences are not required for the website to work, but do improve the experience. These are classified as "functional cookies", "preference cookies", or "user interface cookies" in ePrivacy Directive and UK GDPR literature, examples like remembering your selected language, and still require consent. See https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/direct-marketing-and-pr... . Consent-o-Matic uses this text to describ…
The jury's also still out to what degree third-party cookies need to be disclosed in detail (e.g. whether you really need to keep track of the dozens of cookies Google Maps or YouTube sets or whether you can just refer to their privacy policy for the details). But embeds for YouTube, Twitter, Facebook or Google Maps, or the use of Google Fonts or the use of third-party CDNs for non-essential functionality definitely do require consent (i.e. opt in).
I believe ublock origin blocks these via the annoyances filters, but just the popup element without setting the cookie. I haven't really looked into it.
Sadly this is the wrong solution: proper solution is to create generic "get to the base information" solutions to get past all dark pattern bullshit. Trusting advertisers, web developers under coercion, annoying paywall based sites has been proven to be a bad choice over and over in history repeating itself hellscape. Firefox's "reader view" was the right idea, that doesn't quite go far enough. We need options like "…
That's called an ad blocker.
This is touching on the larger battle for control over user experience, that has been going on since the birth of the WWW.
Most of the sites want you to see everything other than "text, non ad pictures, and original videos" - the latter is a bait and a vector to expose you to ads, dark patterns, and other marketing shenanigans. They'd serve you their page as a PDF if they could get away with. They almost did get away with Flash. They do get away with this with mobile apps. About the only thing stopping them from replacing websites with some ungodly mix of canvas, WebAssembly, and React-like frameworks, is accessibility[0].
Point I'm making is, it's not a PvE game, it's a PvP one. A beefed up Reader Mode is not a solution - try to build one, and half the industry will cry foul, and proceed to invent workarounds. The Web, as we know it today, is funded by the enemy.
--
[0] - specifically, the legal requirements in some scenarios and jurisdictions, which create a sort of back pressure on the industry that keeps the web from full-blown appification.