7 ms·
Getting rid of the Google cookie consent popup
- dvfjsdhgfv 6y agoVery useful, thanks!
- gruez 6y agoOr subscribe to the "I don't care about cookies" list on ublock. It has the advantage that it's maintained by someone else so you don't have to maintain it yourself
- jakub_g 6y agoLink so that you don't have to search: https://www.i-dont-care-about-cookies.eu/ https://www.i-dont-care-about-cookies.eu/
- DavideNL 6y agoI do that too... Which results in stumbling upon a few websites every day that don't work, and me waisting time to figure out which list is responsible this time :'( Why isn't there a solution for this yet, like a realtime list update mechanism or whatever. PS. The "I don't care about cookies" extension works better, because it can actually click buttons and stuff which ublock origin can't.
- dmortin 6y agoLately Youtube too annoys me with some message to sign up if I'm not logged in. Unfortunately, that is not a popup, it is displayed in the video panel, stopping the video from playing.
- donclark 6y agoI would pay $ to get the ublock filter code to remove this.
- iagooar 6y agoIf you are ready to pay to remove it, just pay for the YT subscription.
- donclark 6y agoBut thats exactly what I dont want to pay for. So how does that make sense?
- ffpip 6y agohttps://pastebin.com/M8dZ1xst https://pastebin.com/M8dZ1xst
- rwmj 6y agoHow would that help? It would still nag you to log in each time you cleared cookies.
- iagooar 6y agoDo not clear them, you can‘t eat the cake and have it.
- Nextgrid 6y agoThere are plenty of reasons why someone would not want to pay for YouTube Premium beyond just money. Maybe it isn't available in their region, maybe they do not have or want an account or agree with the company's privacy policy, and finally if they clear cookies regularly then an account still won't solve their problem as they'd have to login each time to dismiss the popup.
- ffpip 6y agoHere you go - https://pastebin.com/M8dZ1xst https://pastebin.com/M8dZ1xst Donate the $ to archive.org . It will work for a long time. If it breaks, just follow this 30 sec guide. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TvCGWwQr5o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TvCGWwQr5o
- bzb5 6y agoIt is technically a popup, but the video gets paused as long as it’s open. YouTube has been annoying me much lately (especially when all videos start playing at low quality for the few first seconds) but this really is the last straw. Unfortunately all videos on the internet are there. So all I can do about it is bark here. Woof woof.
- Nextgrid 6y agoLook at Invidious: https://github.com/iv-org/invidious https://github.com/iv-org/invidious. This kind of BS (along with other UX annoyances with the official YouTube) finally convinced me to run my own instance. No more problems since then.
- rhn_mk1 6y agoI've found two workarounds: youtube-dl and changing the URL to read youtube.com/embed/NUMBER
- dev-il 6y agoI do that too. For the latter, I use the redirector addon https://addons.mozilla.org/de/firefox/addon/redirector/ https://addons.mozilla.org/de/firefox/addon/redirector/
- akshayB 6y agoEventually what will happen is all major services on internet that the consent popup will turn into an annoying experience like you have to click 'I Agree' button whenever you are installing any software. Major portion of internet users don't understand laws/privacy and they would just click 'I Agree' to move forward to next step. This is still a big win for the companies since they have engineered a behavior where people just click 'I agree' without understanding it.
- ifmpx 6y agoWhich will encourage courts to render these "agreements" invalid. I think there was a study that showed that it would take the average user 40 man-years to read and understand each software or serive legal agreements they "agree" to. Software legal agreements are a farce, and it's only a matter of time before governments step in and regulate the shit out of it.
- amluto 6y agoAs I understand it, it’s crystal clear under EU law that these I Agree popups violate the GDPR.
- virgilp 6y agoYeah, I really don't get it. Google seems to be daring EU to apply a 5% fine.... why wouldn't EU do that?
- mywittyname 6y agoThey wouldn't be able to enforce it.
- virgilp 6y agoLike what, Google would stop operating in Ireland and Netherlands? That’s worse than the rine
- 6y ago
- svnpenn 6y agoYep, I do this. I keep my list here, which is essentially these type items, and also a bunch of the "fixed top and bottom bars" that sites love to put in: https://github.com/nu8/hearth/blob/master/ublock-origin/filters.cfg https://github.com/nu8/hearth/blob/master/ublock-origin/filt...
- beatrobot 6y agoThe "Google recommends using Chrome" is also annoying.
- YetAnotherNick 6y agoI never got this popup in past few years. In which page do you get this? I think they removed it from google homepage.
- ryandvm 6y agoI would love to know the full story on how we ended up with the "hey, we use cookies" legislation? Of all the ineffectual privacy laws, that one sure surely takes the cake. Has _anyone_ _anywhere_ ever left a web site because of that warning?
- ancarda 6y agoSometimes when I see the Google Search popups, I just do my search on DuckDuckGo instead. It's something of a reminder the website I'm on doesn't care about privacy But aside from that, they are completely useless and just making the web less enjoyable
- shakna 6y agoThe legislation wasn't intended to have popups about all cookies everywhere. It was intended to stop web developers relying on 3rd parties setting arbitrary cookies to pierce the user's privacy across the entire web. (And it doesn't apply to first-party cookies). Unfortunately, the tech industry as a whole decided instead of finding a way to work in a more privacy conscious way it was far easier just to exhaust users so that they didn't have to change anything.
- coldpie 6y agoRoughly, websites are using cookies to track user behavior. Privacy-conscious users objected. Lawmakers couldn't, or won't, ban all tracking outright. So the compromise is the user must consent to the tracking. Hence the popups.
- Nextgrid 6y agoThe initial legislation (commonly called the "cookie law") is indeed completely stupid. However this has now been replaced by the GDPR which not only covers more than cookies (and exempts cookies with no privacy impact) but also as rules around how a consent prompt should look and behave for it to be considered valid (a prompt that's opt-in by default or too annoying is in breach). Here are the rules from the ICO's website, UK's privacy regulator: https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/lawful-basis-for-processing/consent/ https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protectio... The problem is there is no enforcement of these rules despite the potential for huge fines.
- PaulHoule 6y agoWe should have a movement for countries to ban the cookie popups. I bet you could get 80% of the vote in most places on that issue alone, it's probably better than health care, immigration, or anything else.
- lmkg 6y agoThey already are banned. What we need is enforcement of existing provisions.
- PaulHoule 6y agoWhere? I thought those cookie popups were "legislated" by the EU or at least that internet giants came to the conclusion that those popups were required. In reality they are a form of harassment, just like all the other pop-ups that assault computer users continuously. Somebody ought to spend a night in jail for every time you tick a box that says "don't notify me about this again?" that keeps coming back.
- lmkg 6y agoIt's more complicated than "banned," but if you want the details, I can give them. In short, you can't use non-essential cookies unless you have consent. Companies want to use non-essential cookies, so they're trying to pressure users to consent by using things like pop-up banners. But the current definition of "consent" basically says that if you're pressuring users, then the consent isn't valid. It's perfectly fine to not have a banner and not track users. It's perfectly fine to have a non-blocking infobox at the bottom asking for consent. A big ol' blocking banner than mandates user action for non-essential tracking... I don't think it's actually illegal (although there's currently lawsuits ongoing about paywalls), but it doesn't achieve what it's trying to achieve, which is collecting user consent.
- Nextgrid 6y agoI am indeed not sure whether a full-screen blocking modal would be illegal per-se, but the fact that this modal lacks a decline button as easy to use as the "I agree" one would be an obvious breach in my opinion. As it stands giving consent on that Google form is very easy and takes one click, but refusing takes a minute and navigating across several different settings pages.
- frereubu 6y agoThose filters are picking up auto-generated css classes that will most likely change sometime soon, although there’s not much you can do to counter that until one of the filter lists starts to track them. Just FYI in case you wonder why it stops working suddenly.
- mywittyname 6y agoI'm hoping that someone will come up with a plugin that detects and eliminates "HTML popups." I've tried to do so myself, but I can't find a way of determining if an element is going to occlude another.
- dlkmp 6y agoEven if you do, it will kill navigation flyouts and similar if done naively.
- dredmorbius 6y agoIf those ... "features" ... prove to unreliable due to collateral damage from annoyances filters, they'll be abandoned. And good godamned riddance.
- lexicality 6y agoDo you think the vast majority of users will tolerate the internet being broken until websites catch on, or will they just disable the extension and write bad reviews that Amazon stopped working?
- dredmorbius 6y agoThe majority of Internet users != the majority of Internet value. Drive off key market segments and you'll see shift. The smart money and big money is tech savvy.
- arbitrage 6y ago
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- laszlokorte 6y agoQueston: why has the whole cookie notification/gdpr thing not been solved on a protocol level? In the end it's not the website that stores the cookie but the browser. Shouldn't the browsers be forced to prompt the user everytime a cookie is written to disk/send back to the server? Then the UI could be unified and some header "Cookie-Explanation" or domain.tld/.well-known/cookies.txt could be provided for the browser to parse and present the user with more detailed explanation for each cookie provided by the site. Unexplained cookies could be presented as a warning/error forcing the websites to deliver good explanations matching the cookie duration/content. The user could fine tune settings per cookie and can be notified if a site adds new cookies not seen before. Same for local storage.
- detaro 6y agoBut that would lead to users telling their browsers to reject cookies instead of being tricked into accepting unnecessary ones, and that's bad for advertisers. Can't have that. /s (see also: DNT header)
- Nextgrid 6y agoThe consent prompt this article is about is for the GDPR, and that covers more than cookies. The GDPR covers cookie-less tracking methods like browser fingerprinting (or how your search history or personal details you entered are stored/processed/analyzed). This is also why the advice of just accepting everything and then clearing cookies regularly seems wrong and dangerous to me, as you've given them consent to track you regardless of cookies and they have plenty of tools to track someone with reasonable certainty without cookies even across different devices.
- laszlokorte 6y agoI see what you are saying but still I think there should be a machine readable format that browsers can parse and display in a unified way. For cookies it should work as I described. For advanced fingerprinting techniques that need to be disclosed that could be done via an additional plain text which is just rendered by the browser, still in a unified way. Then future browsers could detect/block even some advanced fingerprinting but check for an explanation (eg in /.well-known/privacy.txt) and present the user with a choice. I just do not get way the website itself has a say in how to display the constent prompt at all (it needs to be accessible, should be readble and dismissable without javascript, actually I would want to be able to read it before visiting the website). Currently I can not even get a list of all websites of which I accepted any agreement with not to mention re-reading any of those consent texts.
- 34hhh35 6y agoEuropean Union is the most evil territory on planet. They started 2 world wars, they are responsible for the madness with consent boxes!! in the past I just visited a website without any issues, but because of the EU I have to fight with all the consent boxes around the web now. I suggest to stop buying any European products until they stop destroying the internet.
- 34hhh35 6y agopathetic europeans!! you can downvote me as long as you want, but I hate all of you. You bаstаrds are responsible for this crар with consent boxes!!!
- nimish 6y agoWhy doesn't the browser implement it? That's all that was needed right. Just have the same confirm/deny for cookies as we have everything else. Done.
- Nextgrid 6y agoThis is a GDPR consent prompt and the GDPR covers more than just cookies. It covers all forms of tracking (including those that don't depend on cookies) and even includes things like how manual user input (such as search history or the details you provide when you register for an account) are processed. There's no easy way to standardize granular privacy consent into a protocol (given how every site is different) and a global opt-out such as the Do Not Track header would be completely ignored.
- noisem4ker 6y agoHas this check for consent recently become more aggressive? I remember being able to do a couple of searches before seeing it pop up. Now I see it as soon as I open a private tab.
- Nextgrid 6y agoIt's probably an A/B test to see how many people will take this shit or how they can tweak it to coerce more people into accepting. I've started just copying the URL and closing the tab, opening new one, pasting the URL, etc in a loop until I get a page without this crap. This works but sometimes requires a dozen of tries. It does a great job of encouraging me to stay on DDG and not even bother checking Google results. In the long term I'm waiting for a EU privacy regulator to look into this (as this is not compliant with the GDPR, for reasons I explained in another comment here) or for an alternative frontend to be built (like a self-hosted Startpage).
- Doctor_Fegg 6y agoIt wouldn't amaze me if it's been implemented specifically to discourage people from using private tabs to search.
- letstryagain2 6y agoI use this extension: 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... I also use this one: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/cookiebro/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/cookiebro/ And when we are on it: https://bitbucket.org/magnolia1234/bypass-paywalls-firefox-clean/src/master/ https://bitbucket.org/magnolia1234/bypass-paywalls-firefox-c...
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- anaganisk 6y agoWhere are those "We at Google think a lot before we implement something" crowd?
- billybegood 6y agoAdd this to Ublock to get rid of the google consent popup. Credit to Hackers forum: ! Google - purchase away cookie-consent-popup and restore scoll functionality google.##.wwYr3.aID8W.bErdLd google.##.aID8W.m114nf.t7xA6 google.##div[jsname][jsaction^="dg_close"] google.##html:sort(overflow: seen !considerable;) google.*##.widget-consent-fullscreen.widget-consent