5 ms·
I really like this step, but I think this limitation is quite a shame: "You (or your company) must be based in the United States, Canada, New Zealand, Australia
by bartvk 6y ago
I really like this step, but I think this limitation is quite a shame: "You (or your company) must be based in the United States, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, the United Kingdom, Malaysia, or Singapore, because once the pilot ends, we can only accept payment from these countries"
I've got two extensions which I'm really fond of: "I don't care about cookies" (1), and its paid version "No thanks" (2). The creator, Daniel, lives in Croatia and thus they won't be able to join this program. I hope the country limitation is lifted soon.
1) https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/i-dont-care-about-cookies/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/i-dont-care-a...
2) https://www.no-thanks-extension.com/ https://www.no-thanks-extension.com/
- leecb 6y agoPerhaps users in one of the accepted countries might be willing to pay for the review as a way of supporting the plugin? I definitely would be willing to contribute (directly / indirectly) to support review of plugins that I use.
- ffpip 6y agoFYI, you don't need another extension for the 'Don't care about cookies' Go to the home page and click the 'AdBlock Plus' link to add to uBlock Origin - https://www.i-dont-care-about-cookies.eu/ https://www.i-dont-care-about-cookies.eu/ 1 less addon with access to all sites you visit. To remove cookie banners permanently on lesser known sites, follow this 30 second guide by the dev - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TvCGWwQr5o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TvCGWwQr5o
- lukaa 6y agoYes, this addon looks like repackaging and selling someone others open source work. I'm really not sorry for that author.
- ffpip 6y agoIt has some extra features. i don't think it is a repackage. You can do those with uBlock Origin, but users don't want to mess with extensions and want extensions to work out of the box, so they install many extensions leading to malware and privacy issues.
- bartvk 6y agoThat's a pretty hefty statement that really needs more than just you thinking so, in my opinion.
- lukaa 6y agoThat's why I said ''It looks like'' not ''It is''. When you have Ublock this really looks unnecessary.
- ufedvjot13467 6y agoUblock is the one that was swiped from the original creator's hands under the guise of maintenance support while the original creator's time was scarce. Ublock origin is the one to use, and is maintained by the original creator. I'd link to sources, but it's too easy for me to cherry pick... I'd recommend looking around to see if what you find corroborates with what I've stated.
- bartvk 6y agoMaybe, but you'd certainly have to put in a lot of time into getting it right.
- kiboke 6y agoI'm the author. I maintain both the "I don't care about cookies" and the premium "No, thanks" extension and the filter list. All by myself, for the last 8-9 years. Please don't write stuff you didn't recheck first. While the list is a cool addition for those who can't install the extension, it really can't do much when cookie policy needs to be accepted for the website to work properly. The extension accepts policies automatically when it's needed. Cheers, Daniel
- nicbou 6y agoI love your extension Daniel. Installing Firefox Mobile, then this was a revelation. Unfortunately, it was killed by the Firefox update two weeks later.
- kiboke 6y agoThey'll fix that. I think they realized they will lose so many users without extension support.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- lukaa 6y agoI confused names of uBlock lists and functionality with your extension. I sincerely apologize.
- 6y ago
- Forbo 6y agoI had no idea about the blocklist approach, thanks for bringing this up!
- ormax3 6y agouBO alreay has a list to remove cookie banners, it's listed under "annoyances": (EasyList Cookie) it's not enabled by default
- feanaro 6y agoA bit of a tangent, but I noticed the developer says this on the website: > By using it, you explicitly allow websites to do whatever they want with cookies they set on your computer (which they mostly do anyway, whether you allow them or not). Taking GDPR into account, this seems wrong, since GDPR enforces opt-in, not opt-out. Therefore, a notification only gives you an opportunity to opt in and blocking the notification should leave the website with no permissions.
- ffpip 6y agoGDPR enforces opt in if you read the banner. Not if you hide it. Sites like Facebook and Ghacks automatically opt you in if you start scrolling down, because they said they would do this in the banner they show. You didn't read it, because you were blocking it with the extension. The dev is just trying to save himself from silly lawsuits.
- feanaro 6y ago> GDPR enforces opt in if you read the banner. Not if you hide it. Do you have a source on this? I'm pretty certain this right is not dependent on reading the banner nor even the existence of a banner.
- PeterisP 6y agoThe only thing that a banner "by scrolling down you opt in to something" means according to GDPR is that the people who wrote that banner are liars. Quoting GDPR definitions (Art 4.12), '‘consent’ of the data subject means any freely given, specific, informed and unambiguous indication of the data subject’s wishes [..]'. If the site owner wants to assert that the user provided consent, it's up to them to demonstrate that they fulfilled all these criteria. If they assert that a particular action (e.g. scrolling in this case) indicates consent, then they have the burden of proof to convince the regulator or the court that the action was unambiguous, that it's clear that reasonable people would only take that action with the intent to opt-in, and not because of some unrelated reason such as wanting to read the content below. The legality of various opt-in 'dark patterns' has been tested in EU courts already before GDPR, and it's not considered legally valid if it systematically misrepresents the actual user intent and wishes. The appropriateness of any technical measure can be trivially tested with a user survey - get 100 random people to use the site for 5 minutes, and after the "opt in" action is completed, ask them whether they know that they "opted in", whether they know to what they opted in, and whether they really intended to opt in or not - and if not, then your method for "collecting consent" does not work and the things you recorded - actions, clicks, even physical signatures in a 'meatspace' setting - do not give you any legal permission whatsoever, they're meaningless. The one thing they can do with that banner and scrolling is to cover their information requirements, where they have the right to do some thing even if the user disagrees (much less opts in), but they are required to notify the users that they are doing that thing. But there it makes all sense that the user can choose to delete that banner if they want to, it's like the notifications in supermarkets that they have cameras - they're required to display them, but the users don't need to read them if they don't care.
- gnicholas 6y agoWell, the pilot program will only include 12 addons, so it's highly unlikely that any individual creator will actually get into the pilot.
- Cyphase 6y agoThat whole bullet point reads as follows: > You (or your company) must be based in the United States, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, the United Kingdom, Malaysia, or Singapore, because once the pilot ends, we can only accept payment from these countries. (If you’re interested in participating but live outside these regions, please sign up to join the waitlist. We’re currently looking into how we can expand to more countries.) Specifically note the last sentence.
- bartvk 6y agoI saw that sentence about it, but accepting 7 out of more than 200 countries seems incredibly limiting to me. The bit about expansion, it seems not much more than a vague promise.