41–50 of 147 posts
These days when I see a link to a news outlet or a blog that intend to consume seriously, I just use archive.is. It removes all the annoyances, it's brilliant.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
That is false, you only consent by your explicit action - clicking "accept". If you inspect element and remove the consent popup entirely, you have not consented.
Works pretty well.
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.
Consent-O-Matic runs on recent Safari, while ublock unfortunately does not
This extension on the other hand used to work maybe on a third, don't know if it improved but I would suggest the first if you're fed up with the cookie popup.
I love the idea but giving "root access" to an extension that's "not monitored for security" is a non-starter. I wish Mozilla would step in and do something good for a change.
I believe there's one over there .
For instance: if the code/config for a particular site or family of sites becomes out of date for a while due to said site(s) adding a bunch of “legitimate interest”¹ checkboxes, then I may have just given consent (or passed by the opportunity to object) without knowing.
----
[1] In other words “we see your preference not to be stalked by our partner(s), but fuck you and your preferences we want to let them anyway”.
I’ve been using this for a couple years now, and absolutely love it. Thanks, team! I also love that it’s owned by the University of Aarhus, as I am more willing to trust academia with something that has a disturbing level of (client-side) access to my browsing data. I really wish the browser vendors would develop better permission models to guarantee my data can’t be exfiltrated by a malicious plugin (aka a once-good…
while we're wishing for impossible things i'd also love if the consent dialogs were an actual standard. if sites could describe a list of what they needed consent for and the browser supplied the actual dialog, so i could just configure it to always allow all if i wanted to, that would be fantastic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While you aren't wrong, somebody might get the dumb idea that "If a tool instantly rejects the consent then the user hasn't truly consciously made a rejection." This is the flimsy excuse made not to respect the Do Not Track header. By making it so that it's a tool for expressing the user's opinion, be it negative or positive, it becomes harder to spin it as being a tool that does not actually embody the user's view.
For the GDPR, that argument would fail immediately. Since the GDPR requires consent to be explicitly granted, and neither conscious rejection nor automatic rejection would constitute an explicit granting of consent, the site would not have a consent to track.