211–220 of 227 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is on Firefox/Linux, but I’ve also seen it on Chrome/Windows, and Safari/Mac.
uBlock-Origin settings | Filters | Cookie notices Works well for that subset of dickovers at least.
uBlock Origin and others remove the banner / consent screens fine, but it breaks functionality sometimes...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At this point, one has to assume anyone still using substack has no problem with Nazis.
I wish they'd all host on substack.com and not their own domains. It's always uncomfortable to go to a site from HN and see that nazi-enabling substack banner.
He claims that dickovers aren't as bad as the dickbars, but I think they're equal. The dickover is a big, immediate distraction that you can't help but deal with. But the dickbar is insidious because you forget it's even there. You just get used to always seeing whatever banner is there and think it's just a permenant piece of the interface and you adapt to not having 25% of your viewport.
Just for the record, the author says the exact opposite. Doesn't change your point though.
Thank you, I got a good laugh out of that. My experience was probably exactly as intended. Click on the "What is a dickover?" link trying to come up with things that it might be. And a brief moment after the page loaded (this little pause is crucial) I am hit in the face with a big annoying popup saying "This is a Dickover" followed by immediate understanding. Now at least I know what to call it the next time I visit…
I was afraid it would be a new kind of henway.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wish they'd all host on substack.com and not their own domains. It's always uncomfortable to go to a site from HN and see that nazi-enabling substack banner.
I'm out of the loop, what's going on with Substack and nazis?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The dickover is purely spite from the websites. No, it’s a legal CYA that provides safe harbor in case you are accused of the behavior. If a law says you need to inform, your lawyers will demand you inform even if zero cookies are used on the site.
> your lawyers will demand you inform even if zero cookies are used on the site. How is not bothering to understand your business, using it as an excuse to hassle your customers in the worst way they have so far conceived and blaming a law that doesn't talk about cookie banners NOT spite?
If you are a lawyer how technically competent would you need to be to have complete assurance that your engineering team is now and always will be in full compliance to eliminate all risk to allow a lack of consent.
Or…you just drop the Ack on site and not worry over it. Thats not spite, it’s compliance convenience.
The method of compliance may may not be perfect, but it addresses the legal problem. There wouldn't be a legal issue without the law. This is not a chicken or the egg situation. No law, no need to inform even if no tracking cookies exist.
> hassle your customers in the worst way they have so far conceived
By informing and asking for a acknowledgment? That seems pretty benign compared to a ton of things I have seen over the last nearly three decades.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Yandex is great. When you want to see news/sites/whatever that does not conform to what the western mainstream powers "accepts as acceptable", you can go to Yandex and you will find it there. When Google search went to shit some years ago I discovered Yandex and found out how much of the web was being deliberately kept away from my eyes. You need search engines from every major power broker in the world to get a full…
I've used the politer term "pie" for these things, since they are usually thrown in the user's face like a pie, after the normal screen has been shown for a few seconds. In the old days, JS allowed window.open() which would create a new window on the user's sceren. That naturally was abused horribly, leading to pop-up-blocker extensions and then built-in browser permissions. We need the same thing for pies/dickovers,…