6 ms·

Or, if you already use uBlock Origin and would rather use its performant, customizable, extensible filtering capabilities instead of adding (and trusting!) yet

Or, if you already use uBlock Origin and would rather use its performant, customizable, extensible filtering capabilities instead of adding (and trusting!) yet another addon, just check the "EasyList Cookie" list in your Filter Lists :) .

fctorial 6y ago
Browsers should allow users to install extensions from github.
- ronjouch 6y ago
  AFAIK, Firefox does, if you're running the beta/nightly channel (and maybe you need to have set an about:config pref too, I forgot, search about it). I install the beta release of uBlock Origin from its GitHub releases page. EDIT: browser makers are understandably cautious about it, even with a closed ecosystem it's already hard enough for them to avoid half their users getting pushed into installing dubious/malware addons within three hours of browsing, and their resources are limited. So, they default to closed-ness "for the masses", but there's a knob. I don't find this unreasonable.
  - jesboat 6y ago
    It'd be neat if extension stores could integrate with some CI system(s). The store could just tell the user "built from <source URL>". Best of both worlds.
- sdfhbdf 6y ago
  It's a balancing act of security and opennes. Extensions so far had a really bad track record of having too much permissions. They could be detrimental to user's life if an extension can easily grab login cookies/credentials or whatever to your banking if you ever enter it in your own browser. I think more restrictions should be put on extensions but it's always hard to balance between accesible developers tools to people who know what they're doing and somebdoy writing down the instructions how to circumvent it to lure the user to install a malicious extension in developer mode.
neil_s 6y ago
The website already offers an ad blocker filter. I use one that was not named on the website, so went poking in the filterlists available in my ad blocker extension, and found "I don't care about cookies" was already listed as an option there.
aembleton 6y ago
I don't care about cookies blocks more. In uBO you can add the I don't care about cookies list: https://www.i-dont-care-about-cookies.eu/abp/ https://www.i-dont-care-about-cookies.eu/abp/
- ronjouch 6y ago
  How do you quantify "more"? If you mean "by length of blocklist", is the number of rules a good metric to evaluate a filter list? In years of using the built-in "EasyList Cookie" list, I've: 1. Never seen a cookie div. 2. Never been bitten by incorrect / false-positivey / over-zealous rules. Everything else being equal, more options is good, but I don't see any reason to switch from Easylist Cookies, which I know is well-maintained, benefits from the Easylist umbrella, and has lots of users (since it's offered by default in uBlock Origin).

fctorial 6y ago

Browsers should allow users to install extensions from github.

ronjouch 6y ago
AFAIK, Firefox does, if you're running the beta/nightly channel (and maybe you need to have set an about:config pref too, I forgot, search about it). I install the beta release of uBlock Origin from its GitHub releases page. EDIT: browser makers are understandably cautious about it, even with a closed ecosystem it's already hard enough for them to avoid half their users getting pushed into installing dubious/malware addons within three hours of browsing, and their resources are limited. So, they default to closed-ness "for the masses", but there's a knob. I don't find this unreasonable.
- jesboat 6y ago
  It'd be neat if extension stores could integrate with some CI system(s). The store could just tell the user "built from <source URL>". Best of both worlds.
sdfhbdf 6y ago
It's a balancing act of security and opennes. Extensions so far had a really bad track record of having too much permissions. They could be detrimental to user's life if an extension can easily grab login cookies/credentials or whatever to your banking if you ever enter it in your own browser. I think more restrictions should be put on extensions but it's always hard to balance between accesible developers tools to people who know what they're doing and somebdoy writing down the instructions how to circumvent it to lure the user to install a malicious extension in developer mode.

neil_s 6y ago

The website already offers an ad blocker filter. I use one that was not named on the website, so went poking in the filterlists available in my ad blocker extension, and found "I don't care about cookies" was already listed as an option there.

aembleton 6y ago

I don't care about cookies blocks more. In uBO you can add the I don't care about cookies list: https://www.i-dont-care-about-cookies.eu/abp/ https://www.i-dont-care-about-cookies.eu/abp/

ronjouch 6y ago
How do you quantify "more"? If you mean "by length of blocklist", is the number of rules a good metric to evaluate a filter list? In years of using the built-in "EasyList Cookie" list, I've: 1. Never seen a cookie div. 2. Never been bitten by incorrect / false-positivey / over-zealous rules. Everything else being equal, more options is good, but I don't see any reason to switch from Easylist Cookies, which I know is well-maintained, benefits from the Easylist umbrella, and has lots of users (since it's offered by default in uBlock Origin).