16 ms·

“I don’t care about cookies“ web extension acquired by Avast

267 points by SamuelAdams 4y ago

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
technothrasher 4y ago
My web browsing just got interrupted by a new tab that opened without asking me, informing me of this acquisition. I have a 'one strike' rule for abusive behavior in extensions, and immediately removed it.
- crooked-v 4y ago
  In my experience this is fairly common for "what's changed" listings for extensions. It's probably mostly to do with how browsers don't provide any good native mechanism for that.
  - krageon 4y ago
    Nobody cares what changed, and nobody should have to care.
    - ben_w 4y ago
      Unless it's a security vulnerability, I quite often find that I would have preferred for the update to never been made in the first place.
    - nneonneo 4y ago
      I do care - I install tools because they're useful, and if they become more useful from new features, that's useful to know. I've definitely found some good gems to improve my workflow that I don't think I'd have discovered without the changelog. What I don't particularly care about is "performance optimizations and bug fixes". If that's all you have to say about your latest release, just don't bother telling me. I suspect that's where some of the fatigue from release notes comes from.
      - KMnO4 4y ago
        I recently received a phone call from Dexcom, since they make a continuous glucose monitor that I wear. The call was to warn me not to upgrade to iOS 16 as their app would immediately crash and I wouldn’t be able to view my blood sugar. I was told a fix was being deployed and I would receive an email when it was safe to upgrade. Sure enough, a week later I received an email saying it was safe to upgrade to iOS 16, provided I updated the app in the App Store first. And as frustrated as I was that a company that large with a product so safety critical had waited literally months after the iOS betas before testing iOS16, I was more frustrated when I read the release notes for this incredibly important update: “Bug fixes and performance optimizations”
    - Ajedi32 4y ago
      In most cases yes, but a change in ownership is definitely something I want to know about. I'd prefer a less intrusive way of notifying me of the change, but in this case the extension in question is one that works passively in the background, and doesn't have a UI that users regularly interact with. I can't really think of a better way to inform people, except maybe via the notification API?
  - PaulHoule 4y ago
    For good reason. It's a pretty safe bet you can throw any mail that has "IMPORTANT" printed on the envelope in the trash. Every online store, software vendor and web site wishes they could get my attention for an "IMPORTANT" message at least 100x more often than I wish they did.
    - chucksmash 4y ago
      Browser extensions already have access to privileged APIs that websites cannot use, however, so providing this ability to extensions !== providing it to medium.com. The kind of company that would abuse an extension API like this for marketing is just the kind of company I wouldn't trust for extensions, so even spammy marketing messages would still be a useful signal (to uninstall).
- Klaster_1 4y ago
  Sublime Text extensions do this too, quite annoying when you open an editor for for a quick note and several seconds in the typing focus switches to a new tab. Of course, browser extensions that do this are annoying too, especially when you get bombarded by new tabs if you didn't use the browser in a while. This is so user-hostile, how come the issue wasn't tackled by browser vendors yet?
  - reaperducer 4y ago
    several seconds in the typing focus switches to a new tab I've never understood why operating systems allow focus switching. It's always been a pox on Windows, but macOS does this more and more these days. Just this morning, I plugged in a USB hard drive, then returned to my other work while it mounted. Suddenly, I'm typing a memo into Finder's password field to unlock the drive. Just. Stop. It. If you need my attention, there is no shortage of methods to do that — Beep. Bounce the icon in the dock. Notifications messages. Your stupid program is not more important than whatever I'm doing at that moment in time.
    - madeofpalk 4y ago
      Agree, but the flip side of this is that occasionally Windows will prompt for admin access in the background, I won't notice, and a hour later wonder what happened to that app i tried to install.
      - reaperducer 4y ago
        I'm not a regular Windows users, but I believe Windows has lots of other ways to get people's attention, other than stealing it. Isn't that what the icon tray is for? Or blinking the program in the task bar?
        Fatnino 4y ago
        No, when windows pops the admin auth prompt into the background the best and most reliable way to notice is to intuit that such a window should have appeared by now and go looking for it.
- rjh29 4y ago
  It's like with phone apps. Every single phone app thinks it is the centre of the universe and is "only" sending you a few notifications per day, but if you extend this to every app on your phone you'll get hundreds a day and the only recourse is to disable them entirely.
  - Swizec 4y ago
    Teachers: "My students are smart and diligent, 30min of homework per day should be well within their abilities" Students: have 4 hours of homework per day The latest app that needs their notifications disabled on my phone is Amazon. Shame really, knowing about packages was useful. But I really don't need spam about "Hey this thing you glanced at is on sale now" every 2 days.
    - joshmanders 4y ago
      DoorDash is terrible at this too. Notice that when you turn notifications off on these apps then every time you open them to use them, you get popups "please enable notifications to keep up to date on your orders!!" and the options are always "Yes enable notifications!" or "Remind me later" Excuse me, I disabled notifications for a reason, don't make me disable usage of your app completely.
      - Swizec 4y ago
        Oh yeah UberEats was one of the first notification permissions to go. Sorry I’d rather check my phone every 2 minutes when awaiting delivery than deal with you on the other 95% of days.
        autoexec 4y ago
        Why not disable all notifications by default? Is there something you actually really want to get interrupted by? I want to know when I get a call or an text, but pretty much everything else can wait until I'm actively engaged with it. Every new app I installed gets every permission I can disable disabled including notifications and if it continues to function well enough for my needs why let it do anything more? Why even give new apps opportunity to be obnoxious?
- TheJoeMan 4y ago
  Then there is someone nearly the same who cries foul when they aren’t told a new company owns the extension. What if Google bought it and was going to harvest that “ability to read and change website data” permission?
  - Ajedi32 4y ago
    Yeah, I dislike the intrusive nature of the notification, but I can't really think of a better way off the top of my head. The notification API could work in theory, but if you don't already have that permission it would be odd to request it just for a one-time message like this.
  - ls15 4y ago
    It should tell you before you install or update the extension, not randomly when they decide that now is the best time.
    - andrewstuart2 4y ago
      I'm assuming that an extension update is precisely what triggered this behavior. It sounds like the extension had no need for alert functionality, and that this was a first occurrence, so I'd also assume they had to add code to trigger an alert rather than just blasting a brand new alert to users via written but previously-unused code.
    - mh- 4y ago
      I'm fairly sure the Chrome Extension API doesn't have a way to implement "before self-updating, do this thing". This might have been their best/only option. The only other approach would be to notify them post-update.
- Flimm 4y ago
  This is the polar opposite of abusive behaviour.
  - OrvalWintermute 4y ago
    I think the "stealing of focus" is what the commenter took issue with. Many people complain about OSes and apps for that matter, stealing focus inappropriately.
- ouid 4y ago
  Yesterday discord asked me, upon install, for permission to capture keystrokes when it is not in focus.
  - gibspaulding 4y ago
    Do you have push-to-talk enabled, or a keybind for toggle-mute? That's a super abusable permission and this isn't to say they aren't abusing it, but there is a reason for it to exist.
  - jasonlotito 4y ago
    Part of that is handling the Discord overlay. So, when you are in a game, and you are in a Discord VC, you can display who is talking. There are keyboard shortcuts that come along with that which you can use if you want. In order to detect those keyboard short cuts, they need to listen for them. You are free to not give them permission. Posting about asking permission under a comment talking about "abusive" behavior is a bit odd.
    - ouid 4y ago
      Opening a new tab telling you about changes in the ownership of a piece of software that has the ability to open tabs autonomously is not abusive. Moreover it is not even a problem with the extension, it is a problem with the opersting system it runs on. Analogously, i am sure that discord would have preferred to have finer control over the permissions it requests, but Apple's mission is security theater. If apple exposed a set of "application specific out of focus keybinds". The security breach would not be necessary. As it stands lots of software in the apple ecosystem has identical permissions to discord, but those don't get scary warnings associated to them. This constitutes a (clearly illegal) competitive advantage for Apple and they have no interest in removing this advantage by offering finer permissions controls, even in the case where they do not offer competing software.
- petesergeant 4y ago
  That's _exactly_ what I'd want to happen? Transfer of ownership of an extension that has access to my most intimate data, I want a klaxon to go off...
- dylan604 4y ago
  That sounds like somethign that should happen on new window launch or after a relaunch of app kind of thing. For the browser to just randomly open a tab is very uncool
- andrepd 4y ago
  What an odd complaint. The annoyance of 1 pop-up is negligible compared to the extreme usefulness of letting me know that the extension was acquired. That is what makes me uninstall the extension.
mdrzn 4y ago
"I will keep working on the project and the extension will remain free to use" seems the best outcome of selling something
- luckylion 4y ago
  * (we'll monetize your data instead, keeping the extension free to use)
shp0ngle 4y ago
I remember older version of this extension was distributed under GPL... maybe someone can dig it up and put it on github.
- shp0ngle 4y ago
  Ah it still is, as of 3.4.2. The newest version is still GPLv3. It's in Chrome extensions folder in Profile, in LICENSE. I think that means the extension can still be put to github even right now and re-distributed.
- walthamstow 4y ago
  I have recovered and am hosting the version 3.4.2 source code, the version prior to the Avast acquisition, at the below repo https://github.com/elgrove/idcac-3.4.2 https://github.com/elgrove/idcac-3.4.2
  - omgmajk 4y ago
    Love how it's already been forked five times. Fantastic.
cbsks 4y ago
I can think of lots of nefarious reasons why a company would buy a browser extension, but I’m having a hard time thinking of a a potential good outcome of this. If we put on our optimism hats, why would Avast buy an extension? What benefit could they possibly get from it? Edit: Maybe it is just a talent acquisition?
- burkaman 4y ago
  Avast has its own browser, maybe they wanted to implement this feature natively in the browser and figured it would just be easier to acquire an already working solution.
- ask_otter 4y ago
  Browser extensions were main data source for their analytics subsidiary Jumpshot [1], which was shutdown for privacy reasons. Before that, when Mozilla and Opera started asking about their extensions, they rather removed them [2]. [1]: https://www.vice.com/en/article/qjdkq7/avast-antivirus-sells-user-browsing-data-investigation https://www.vice.com/en/article/qjdkq7/avast-antivirus-sells... [2]: https://palant.info/2019/12/03/mozilla-removes-avast-extensions-from-their-add-on-store-what-will-google-do/ https://palant.info/2019/12/03/mozilla-removes-avast-extensi...
  - cbsks 4y ago
    That’s troubling. My optimism hat is starting to look silly…
    - dylan604 4y ago
      whenever it comes to web/data/privacy, default should be to not trust anyone, block all requests, deny deny deny. if and only if a company can prove they can be trusted, then on a compay-by-company/site-by-site basis should they be allowed to do things. that should be a very steep hill to climb. blanket optimism sounds like a nice lifestyle of the young, but with age comes realization the world only takes advantage and wisdom leads to being more pessimistic. question everything including authority is how i was raised.
kytazo 4y ago
Ok thanks, I uninstalled it already
rcMgD2BwE72F 4y ago
What's the best alternative?
- Tajnymag 4y ago
  You could add the underlying list to ublock. Or use a different list like Fanboy's Annoyance or EasyList Cookie
  - wartijn_ 4y ago
    This extention clicks on accept on every cookie notice you encountered. I don't think you can just block all those notices and expect sites to keep working.
    - luckylion 4y ago
      I've never looked into that, but how many CMPs are there, really? It feels like it's a pretty small market and very few people are rolling their own solution, so it shouldn't be too hard to shim them, I naively believe. Not having to wait for Cookiebot's slow servers to get their act together would be quite refreshing.
    - Kuinox 4y ago
      I run with this and I had few issues. Rarely, a site break yeah, but that it.
    - fariszr 4y ago
      Oh I thought it just removed the notices, good to know at last lol. I delete cookies every time I close the browser anyway.
  - rcMgD2BwE72F 4y ago
    Thanks but I'm already using both and this fails to reject or accept cookies prompts most of the time.
- bni 4y ago
  Hush
dinkblam 4y ago
Avast was caught stealing data from their users a while back: https://www.vice.com/en/article/qjdkq7/avast-antivirus-sells-user-browsing-data-investigation https://www.vice.com/en/article/qjdkq7/avast-antivirus-sells... so calling them 'a famous and trustworthy IT company' is quite a thing. infamous perhaps.
- Cthulhu_ 4y ago
  I'm 99% confident that this announcement and the language used was part of the purchase deal.
- uwuemu 4y ago
  I have one question: Why THE HELL isn't this a part of all browsers already? Why does it have to be some obscure 3rd party extension? And I don't mean just Chrome, I mean all of them. All browsers should have this option: "I don't care about gdpr cookies". Set a window object window.dontcare and done. Sites can check this and automatically comfirm or don't even show gdpr banners if window.dontcare is set. This cookie bullcrap has been a forced on all of us from the bureaucrat bastards in the EU, and now everyone has to click on what are essentially popup banners of the 2000s every time they visit a new site (or even the same site a bit later!). Fuck that. No, let me say it again: FUCK THAT. Implementing this into a browser would be the biggest QOL improvement any web browser could possibly do at this point.
  - rileymat2 4y ago
    There would be very little value to a website respecting that flag if it is a significant part of revenue.
    - WanderPanda 4y ago
      He is talking about window.dontcare not window.icare
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - 4y ago
xfalcox 4y ago
OH NO, this is my favorite extension. What to do now?
- moviuro 4y ago
  Write more filters for uBlock Origin and unbreak the web? e.g. https://github.com/AdguardTeam/AdguardFilters/tree/master/AnnoyancesFilter https://github.com/AdguardTeam/AdguardFilters/tree/master/An...
  - awiesenhofer 4y ago
    Filters wont help you here, the extension actively clicked the consent forms for you, not something you can do with filter lists.
    - moviuro 4y ago
      No forms = no consent = unbroken Web.
yahooboi 4y ago
StephenSmith 4y ago
Is there a version of this product that tells the site to block all cookies automatically? It seems this just answers whatever is easiest to keep the site running.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
awiesenhofer 4y ago
Damn, this sucks! Anyone know of a good alternative? (No, UBOs annoyance/cookie filters dont come close sadly...)
parmezan 4y ago
Deinstalled. Very sad because this this extension made my life better. Any open source (FLOSS) alternative?
- o_m 4y ago
  You can active filters in ublock origin that blocks cookie banners. I think the one I'm using is "Fanboy’s Annoyance".
  - dngray 4y ago
    THIS. Which is why we don't recommend extensions on privacyguides.org besides uBO (uBlock Origin). If that ever gets bought, you'll hear about it everywhere and there will most likely be a fork. These days for privacy with Firefox you really don't need anything else. There are a few others that may have something to offer https://github.com/arkenfox/user.js/wiki/4.1-Extensions https://github.com/arkenfox/user.js/wiki/4.1-Extensions for specific purposes.
    - Larrikin 4y ago
      I'd rather be actively hostile to the ads and tracking and use Ad Nauseum, instead of passively blocking them with just UbO
      - Semaphor 4y ago
        But then you also wouldn’t have been using this extension which defaulted to allowing all possible tracking when it couldn’t figure the popup out. This was an extension for people who don’t care about privacy.
        wartijn_ 4y ago
        I have (had, soon) this add-on and I very much care a out privacy. Blocking all cookies from non-whitelisted sites is more or less impossible with all the consent pop ups. Ant many of those pop ups make it really hard to reject cookies. So I went for a solution that makes browsing less annoying, whithout storing many cookies: - Have this add on accept all cookies - Block third party cookies - Delete cookies from websites as soon as I close a tab I (and you) don't know if many users of this add on do something similar, but it is what's recommended on the website > Please educate yourself about cookie related privacy issues and ways to protect yourself and your data. For example, you can block 3rd party cookies, install ad blocking extensions and then block tracking tools, delete browsing data regularly, enable Tracking Protection in your browser etc.
omgmajk 4y ago
Time to deactivate. Shame.
marcodiego 4y ago
AFAIK the license is GPLv3. So avast is acquiring what exactly? The name?
- Cthulhu_ 4y ago
  The account in the extension store, and the ability to auto-update everyone's installed version for their own goals - whichever they may be.
aneutron 4y ago
So this URL just jumped to me opened by the extension. I instantly uninstalled it, and reported it to Mozilla. I hate that I have to, but I have to.
NeveHanter 4y ago
Well two things/questions: 1. Can we somehow get Mozilla/Firefox ban/de-list the extension from the extension store so Avast doesn't get the user-base this extension has/had? 2. We should be able to get the author to publish the source code of the latest version licensed under GPLv3, any way to do this, except asking on Twitter/LinkedIn?
- edf13 4y ago
  Why should you be able to get source code of someone’s private work?
  - NeveHanter 4y ago
    If it's GPLv3 licensed, then I should be able to request and get the access to the source code: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MustSourceBuildToMatchExactHashOfBinary https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MustSourceBuildToM... and https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.txt https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.txt section 6, point d
    - Vinnl 4y ago
      That only applies to redistributors, not to the original author. The way the GPL works, is that the author absconds some of the copyright they hold by default, in exchange for people taking advantage of that committing to publishing even modified source code whenever they redistribute it.
      - MichaelCollins 4y ago
        Abscond means to hide or steal away. I think you mean abdicate? That would make more sense in this context. It's still not quite right though, the author of a GPL work fully retains the copyright of their work, and merely give a license to others.
        Vinnl 4y ago
Probable8618 4y ago
loudandskittish 4y ago
"A cookie has been detected"
Probable8618 4y ago
The license is still GPLv3 so anyone can take the source code, slap it on GitHub and maintain a more community run alternative.
- maccard 4y ago
  > The license is still GPLv3 so anyone can take the source code, slap it on GitHub and maintain a more community run alternative. 2 out of 3 of those things are very easy, but "maintain a more community run alternative" is an enormous undertaking.
noasaservice 4y ago
Thank you for the plugin removal notice.
dessant 4y ago
This is your cue to remove the extension from your browser immediately. I've been developing extensions for years, and I've never seen an extension acquisition done by a company like Avast not transform the extension into a data harvesting operation. Judging by the size of the user base the author was paid at least 100k USD, all for an open source project that is free to fork. Avast has acquired you, the user, and the original maintainer continuing to work on the project is just a ruse, the new owners prefer to do it this way to reduce user loss until the business end of a future extension update is pushed out to your devices.
- duxup 4y ago
  It's kinda sad what the browser extension ecosystem has become. Seems like a neat hobbyist / handy tool space that quickly turned into a sorta predatory space.
  - dessant 4y ago
    It's not just browser extensions, but any popular software project that has no stable funding source. This extension has been maintained for years, and it requires a lot of effort to keep updated because it interacts with websites. These developers are then offered funds for perhaps a new home, and they can hardly be faulted for taking the deal. This issue can only be solved by finding better ways to fund the development of popular software projects that serve the public good. https://armin.dev/blog/2019/08/supporting-browser-extension-developers/ https://armin.dev/blog/2019/08/supporting-browser-extension-...
    - duxup 4y ago
      So true. Rando popular freeware suddenly has an installer from hell and so on.
    - munk-a 4y ago
      I actually prefer the funding model where occasionally these free software developers do receive a big payday without any shame or stigma and a fork of their project is almost instantly launched under different branding. So Avast gets a one time user network buyout but the functionality of the tool persists in availability. Better funding for the project while it remains free is never a bad thing though, if you get a lot of value out of some free software you use please never forget to tip or even patreon/other-subscription-payment-plan its continued development!
soulofmischief 4y ago
I miss the days when antivirus protected against spyware and adware, now even your browser and OS get in on the game and employs hostile tricks.
- _joel 4y ago
  I wonder how many viruses were created by AV companies though? :)
margarina72 4y ago
ok, removed. Turns out ublock can do that too... On the bright side, Avast has less cash and some cool dev out there got to bank on its project.
meibo 4y ago
Avast is the worst of the worst snake oil AVs. I wouldn't let them anywhere near my browser.
Raed667 4y ago
I decompiled the extension a while back and it is a series of custom JS code for each website or CMP provider with matching rules. Only checked the bundled version but the code seemed very custom and labor intensive to keep up with website changes. Best of luck to future forks and maintainers. I didn't spend too much time on it, because a filter based approach seemed more maintainable.
t0bia_s 4y ago
Any alternatives? Cookies baners are incredibly annoying.
- citruscomputing 4y ago
  They have a filter list: https://www.i-dont-care-about-cookies.eu/abp/ https://www.i-dont-care-about-cookies.eu/abp/ If you have uBlock Origin, go to settings, filter lists, scroll to bottom, custom, import, paste this URL. Enable AdGuard annoyances while you're at it. It's not perfect, but this replicates the "don't show me cookie dialogs" feature pretty well.
  - celsoazevedo 4y ago
    uBO doesn't accept or reject though and that is required for some sites to work. That's why I used this extension and uBO.
- DavideNL 4y ago
  This one perhaps? https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/consent-o-matic/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/consent-o-mat... https://github.com/cavi-au/Consent-O-Matic https://github.com/cavi-au/Consent-O-Matic
  - DavideNL 4y ago
    Debloated fork of the extension "I don't care about cookies" (WIP) : https://github.com/OhMyGuus/I-Dont-Care-About-Cookies https://github.com/OhMyGuus/I-Dont-Care-About-Cookies
_joel 4y ago
That's me deleting it
keepquestioning 4y ago
The Web is a shitshow What does Brave do about the cookie crap?
- InCityDreams 4y ago
  ? As a Brave user, what are you actually asking for? My Brave opened a window that told me about the purchase. So I read the comments, immediately uninstalled IDCAC and installed a different cookie monitor (meh!), but what do you want Brave to do? I think if you can articulate that, there will be some good responses and suggestions for alternatives.
walthamstow 4y ago
I have recovered and am hosting the source code for version 3.4.2, the version prior to the Avast acquisition, on GitHub at the following https://github.com/elgrove/idcac-3.4.2 https://github.com/elgrove/idcac-3.4.2 I am not well versed in open source licensing but I believe the GPL3 gives me permission to do this. Please could someone more knowledgeable confirm this for me. I am not a web developer, I'm hosting the code in the hope that someone else will take it and fork it. It's one of my favourite extensions and a day 1 install on any new machine, along with UBO
- Oktokolo 4y ago
  Yes, the GPL 3 grants you the right to do this.
- stainablesteel 4y ago
  yep you can do whatever you want with it
  - dark-star 4y ago
    no, certainly not
  - syockit 4y ago
    No, you only have the license, not the copyright. So you are permitted to redistribute the code as stipulated by the license, but you are not allowed to, for example, relicense existing code to something else like BSD (except for modifications that you made afterwards).
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
sttav 4y ago
Shit
MichaelCollins 4y ago
This is why I want a browser with an extension repository that is managed in the same way linux distros like debian manage their repositories. It should only allow open source extensions in the repository, packaged by employees or volunteers known to the organization. If the upstream gets sold to a malware company like Avast, that package is forked or simply removed from the repositories if a trusted maintainer for a fork cannot be found.
- xg15 4y ago
  I mean, take a look at how many projects recommend curl | sh as the official way of installing their software and how many "alternative" package managers there are, where devs can just push updates directly. The desire of developers to get around distro maintainers and grab full control of update distribution is strong...
  - MichaelCollins 4y ago
    I don't care about that. I am not asking for a browser or a linux distro that forbids the installation of extensions not in the repository. I want a browser that has a repository I can trust, as already exist for linux distros. I cannot trust either Mozilla or Google's extension repositories, they are 'managed' in a substandard manner relative to Debian or android's F-Droid. Both of these extension repositories are managed so poorly it seems farcical to say they're managed at all.
    - xg15 4y ago
      In the current case, the extension used to be perfectly trustworthy, then it got sold with the full permission of the author. I'd like such a repository too, but the "extensions going bad" dynamic usually happens with the full cooperation of the extension's developer, so I could imagine many extension developers would be actively opposed to such a repo. Therefore, the browser would have to possibly act against the wishes of the developers here and e.g. keep an earlier version of an extension available even if the developer would like to remove it.
sttav 4y ago
What a shame. Uninstalled.
zac23or 4y ago
Avast - a famous and trustworthy IT company. You can call Avast many things, but a "trustworthy IT company." is not one of those things.
rektide 4y ago
Consent-o-mattic and Auto Cookie Optout are both pretty good. They also let you block rather tham accept all cookies. Wild to me that the accept all cookies extension has been the winning one, but they have a cute name. You should care though, caring is cool & good, & you should care about privacy online & reducing the vast capitalist-survelliance machinery. It's easy, just use a non apathetic extension instead of one whose whole premise has been apathy. (I hear uBlock Origin has an anti-annoyance filter or filters that does something to deal with cookie banners but unsure what.) https://github.com/cavi-au/Consent-O-Matic https://github.com/cavi-au/Consent-O-Matic https://github.com/CodyMcCodington/AutoCookieOptout https://github.com/CodyMcCodington/AutoCookieOptout
DavideNL 4y ago
Interesting to see the reviews... : https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/i-dont-care-about-cookies/reviews/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/i-dont-care-a...
- omgmajk 4y ago
  It's the same thing on the google chrome store. The link I get from there seems personalized so can't share it, but it's still funny.
pornel 4y ago
There's https://ninja-cookie.com/ https://ninja-cookie.com/ alternative.
rizoma_dev 4y ago
Does anyone have any alternative extensions to it?
phendrenad2 4y ago
If the community really cares, raise some money and buy it back from them.
no-reply 4y ago
If you are on 3.4.2 from 12-Aug-22, then a better option can be to disable auto update for the extension.
no-reply 4y ago
I like how everyone is quick in stating the GPLv3 license and asking somebody to maintain it. I know I can't do that either but looking at everybody pointing fingers is funny.
eigenlicht 4y ago
Feels almost like the end of that part of the internet to me. ;) Or like with electricity or even drinking water, where you no longer realize how essential something is, until it fails. CoM, or what a this point appears most recommended, unfortunately doesn't do the trick for me, though I appreciate all efforts of course. Doesn't even work on BBC or Guardian, let alone on German sites that's where I'm based. Even when and where it does something, seems you still get to see everyting that's going on, there's a silly animation and it takes ages. Ages. Don't get me wrong but this is a step backward unless you're fantastically slow, and/or mouse-bound. I have the impression it's rendered all the more useless since I'm "private" mode only user (Firefox) and used to close windows often. Obviously still a better choice than IDCAC now. Anything is. But no way out for me. Until there is, I might as well go text browser only, for news, wikipedia and passive reading of stuff like HN.
InCityDreams 4y ago
Fastest uninstall ever.

267 points by SamuelAdams 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

My web browsing just got interrupted by a new tab that opened without asking me, informing me of this acquisition. I have a 'one strike' rule for abusive behavior in extensions, and immediately removed it.

crooked-v 4y ago
In my experience this is fairly common for "what's changed" listings for extensions. It's probably mostly to do with how browsers don't provide any good native mechanism for that.
- krageon 4y ago
  Nobody cares what changed, and nobody should have to care.
  - ben_w 4y ago
    Unless it's a security vulnerability, I quite often find that I would have preferred for the update to never been made in the first place.
  - nneonneo 4y ago
    I do care - I install tools because they're useful, and if they become more useful from new features, that's useful to know. I've definitely found some good gems to improve my workflow that I don't think I'd have discovered without the changelog. What I don't particularly care about is "performance optimizations and bug fixes". If that's all you have to say about your latest release, just don't bother telling me. I suspect that's where some of the fatigue from release notes comes from.
    - KMnO4 4y ago
      I recently received a phone call from Dexcom, since they make a continuous glucose monitor that I wear. The call was to warn me not to upgrade to iOS 16 as their app would immediately crash and I wouldn’t be able to view my blood sugar. I was told a fix was being deployed and I would receive an email when it was safe to upgrade. Sure enough, a week later I received an email saying it was safe to upgrade to iOS 16, provided I updated the app in the App Store first. And as frustrated as I was that a company that large with a product so safety critical had waited literally months after the iOS betas before testing iOS16, I was more frustrated when I read the release notes for this incredibly important update: “Bug fixes and performance optimizations”
  - Ajedi32 4y ago
    In most cases yes, but a change in ownership is definitely something I want to know about. I'd prefer a less intrusive way of notifying me of the change, but in this case the extension in question is one that works passively in the background, and doesn't have a UI that users regularly interact with. I can't really think of a better way to inform people, except maybe via the notification API?
- PaulHoule 4y ago
  For good reason. It's a pretty safe bet you can throw any mail that has "IMPORTANT" printed on the envelope in the trash. Every online store, software vendor and web site wishes they could get my attention for an "IMPORTANT" message at least 100x more often than I wish they did.
  - chucksmash 4y ago
    Browser extensions already have access to privileged APIs that websites cannot use, however, so providing this ability to extensions !== providing it to medium.com. The kind of company that would abuse an extension API like this for marketing is just the kind of company I wouldn't trust for extensions, so even spammy marketing messages would still be a useful signal (to uninstall).
Klaster_1 4y ago
Sublime Text extensions do this too, quite annoying when you open an editor for for a quick note and several seconds in the typing focus switches to a new tab. Of course, browser extensions that do this are annoying too, especially when you get bombarded by new tabs if you didn't use the browser in a while. This is so user-hostile, how come the issue wasn't tackled by browser vendors yet?
- reaperducer 4y ago
  several seconds in the typing focus switches to a new tab I've never understood why operating systems allow focus switching. It's always been a pox on Windows, but macOS does this more and more these days. Just this morning, I plugged in a USB hard drive, then returned to my other work while it mounted. Suddenly, I'm typing a memo into Finder's password field to unlock the drive. Just. Stop. It. If you need my attention, there is no shortage of methods to do that — Beep. Bounce the icon in the dock. Notifications messages. Your stupid program is not more important than whatever I'm doing at that moment in time.
  - madeofpalk 4y ago
    Agree, but the flip side of this is that occasionally Windows will prompt for admin access in the background, I won't notice, and a hour later wonder what happened to that app i tried to install.
    - reaperducer 4y ago
      I'm not a regular Windows users, but I believe Windows has lots of other ways to get people's attention, other than stealing it. Isn't that what the icon tray is for? Or blinking the program in the task bar?
      - Fatnino 4y ago
        No, when windows pops the admin auth prompt into the background the best and most reliable way to notice is to intuit that such a window should have appeared by now and go looking for it.
rjh29 4y ago
It's like with phone apps. Every single phone app thinks it is the centre of the universe and is "only" sending you a few notifications per day, but if you extend this to every app on your phone you'll get hundreds a day and the only recourse is to disable them entirely.
- Swizec 4y ago
  Teachers: "My students are smart and diligent, 30min of homework per day should be well within their abilities" Students: have 4 hours of homework per day The latest app that needs their notifications disabled on my phone is Amazon. Shame really, knowing about packages was useful. But I really don't need spam about "Hey this thing you glanced at is on sale now" every 2 days.
  - joshmanders 4y ago
    DoorDash is terrible at this too. Notice that when you turn notifications off on these apps then every time you open them to use them, you get popups "please enable notifications to keep up to date on your orders!!" and the options are always "Yes enable notifications!" or "Remind me later" Excuse me, I disabled notifications for a reason, don't make me disable usage of your app completely.
    - Swizec 4y ago
      Oh yeah UberEats was one of the first notification permissions to go. Sorry I’d rather check my phone every 2 minutes when awaiting delivery than deal with you on the other 95% of days.
      - autoexec 4y ago
        Why not disable all notifications by default? Is there something you actually really want to get interrupted by? I want to know when I get a call or an text, but pretty much everything else can wait until I'm actively engaged with it. Every new app I installed gets every permission I can disable disabled including notifications and if it continues to function well enough for my needs why let it do anything more? Why even give new apps opportunity to be obnoxious?
TheJoeMan 4y ago
Then there is someone nearly the same who cries foul when they aren’t told a new company owns the extension. What if Google bought it and was going to harvest that “ability to read and change website data” permission?
- Ajedi32 4y ago
  Yeah, I dislike the intrusive nature of the notification, but I can't really think of a better way off the top of my head. The notification API could work in theory, but if you don't already have that permission it would be odd to request it just for a one-time message like this.
- ls15 4y ago
  It should tell you before you install or update the extension, not randomly when they decide that now is the best time.
  - andrewstuart2 4y ago
    I'm assuming that an extension update is precisely what triggered this behavior. It sounds like the extension had no need for alert functionality, and that this was a first occurrence, so I'd also assume they had to add code to trigger an alert rather than just blasting a brand new alert to users via written but previously-unused code.
  - mh- 4y ago
    I'm fairly sure the Chrome Extension API doesn't have a way to implement "before self-updating, do this thing". This might have been their best/only option. The only other approach would be to notify them post-update.
Flimm 4y ago
This is the polar opposite of abusive behaviour.
- OrvalWintermute 4y ago
  I think the "stealing of focus" is what the commenter took issue with. Many people complain about OSes and apps for that matter, stealing focus inappropriately.
ouid 4y ago
Yesterday discord asked me, upon install, for permission to capture keystrokes when it is not in focus.
- gibspaulding 4y ago
  Do you have push-to-talk enabled, or a keybind for toggle-mute? That's a super abusable permission and this isn't to say they aren't abusing it, but there is a reason for it to exist.
- jasonlotito 4y ago
  Part of that is handling the Discord overlay. So, when you are in a game, and you are in a Discord VC, you can display who is talking. There are keyboard shortcuts that come along with that which you can use if you want. In order to detect those keyboard short cuts, they need to listen for them. You are free to not give them permission. Posting about asking permission under a comment talking about "abusive" behavior is a bit odd.
  - ouid 4y ago
    Opening a new tab telling you about changes in the ownership of a piece of software that has the ability to open tabs autonomously is not abusive. Moreover it is not even a problem with the extension, it is a problem with the opersting system it runs on. Analogously, i am sure that discord would have preferred to have finer control over the permissions it requests, but Apple's mission is security theater. If apple exposed a set of "application specific out of focus keybinds". The security breach would not be necessary. As it stands lots of software in the apple ecosystem has identical permissions to discord, but those don't get scary warnings associated to them. This constitutes a (clearly illegal) competitive advantage for Apple and they have no interest in removing this advantage by offering finer permissions controls, even in the case where they do not offer competing software.
petesergeant 4y ago
That's _exactly_ what I'd want to happen? Transfer of ownership of an extension that has access to my most intimate data, I want a klaxon to go off...
dylan604 4y ago
That sounds like somethign that should happen on new window launch or after a relaunch of app kind of thing. For the browser to just randomly open a tab is very uncool
andrepd 4y ago
What an odd complaint. The annoyance of 1 pop-up is negligible compared to the extreme usefulness of letting me know that the extension was acquired. That is what makes me uninstall the extension.

mdrzn 4y ago

"I will keep working on the project and the extension will remain free to use" seems the best outcome of selling something

luckylion 4y ago
* (we'll monetize your data instead, keeping the extension free to use)

shp0ngle 4y ago

I remember older version of this extension was distributed under GPL... maybe someone can dig it up and put it on github.

shp0ngle 4y ago
Ah it still is, as of 3.4.2. The newest version is still GPLv3. It's in Chrome extensions folder in Profile, in LICENSE. I think that means the extension can still be put to github even right now and re-distributed.
walthamstow 4y ago
I have recovered and am hosting the version 3.4.2 source code, the version prior to the Avast acquisition, at the below repo https://github.com/elgrove/idcac-3.4.2 https://github.com/elgrove/idcac-3.4.2
- omgmajk 4y ago
  Love how it's already been forked five times. Fantastic.

cbsks 4y ago

I can think of lots of nefarious reasons why a company would buy a browser extension, but I’m having a hard time thinking of a a potential good outcome of this. If we put on our optimism hats, why would Avast buy an extension? What benefit could they possibly get from it? Edit: Maybe it is just a talent acquisition?

burkaman 4y ago
Avast has its own browser, maybe they wanted to implement this feature natively in the browser and figured it would just be easier to acquire an already working solution.
ask_otter 4y ago
Browser extensions were main data source for their analytics subsidiary Jumpshot [1], which was shutdown for privacy reasons. Before that, when Mozilla and Opera started asking about their extensions, they rather removed them [2]. [1]: https://www.vice.com/en/article/qjdkq7/avast-antivirus-sells-user-browsing-data-investigation https://www.vice.com/en/article/qjdkq7/avast-antivirus-sells... [2]: https://palant.info/2019/12/03/mozilla-removes-avast-extensions-from-their-add-on-store-what-will-google-do/ https://palant.info/2019/12/03/mozilla-removes-avast-extensi...
- cbsks 4y ago
  That’s troubling. My optimism hat is starting to look silly…
  - dylan604 4y ago
    whenever it comes to web/data/privacy, default should be to not trust anyone, block all requests, deny deny deny. if and only if a company can prove they can be trusted, then on a compay-by-company/site-by-site basis should they be allowed to do things. that should be a very steep hill to climb. blanket optimism sounds like a nice lifestyle of the young, but with age comes realization the world only takes advantage and wisdom leads to being more pessimistic. question everything including authority is how i was raised.

kytazo 4y ago

Ok thanks, I uninstalled it already

rcMgD2BwE72F 4y ago

What's the best alternative?

Tajnymag 4y ago
You could add the underlying list to ublock. Or use a different list like Fanboy's Annoyance or EasyList Cookie
- wartijn_ 4y ago
  This extention clicks on accept on every cookie notice you encountered. I don't think you can just block all those notices and expect sites to keep working.
  - luckylion 4y ago
    I've never looked into that, but how many CMPs are there, really? It feels like it's a pretty small market and very few people are rolling their own solution, so it shouldn't be too hard to shim them, I naively believe. Not having to wait for Cookiebot's slow servers to get their act together would be quite refreshing.
  - Kuinox 4y ago
    I run with this and I had few issues. Rarely, a site break yeah, but that it.
  - fariszr 4y ago
    Oh I thought it just removed the notices, good to know at last lol. I delete cookies every time I close the browser anyway.
- rcMgD2BwE72F 4y ago
  Thanks but I'm already using both and this fails to reject or accept cookies prompts most of the time.
bni 4y ago
Hush

dinkblam 4y ago

Avast was caught stealing data from their users a while back: https://www.vice.com/en/article/qjdkq7/avast-antivirus-sells-user-browsing-data-investigation https://www.vice.com/en/article/qjdkq7/avast-antivirus-sells... so calling them 'a famous and trustworthy IT company' is quite a thing. infamous perhaps.

Cthulhu_ 4y ago
I'm 99% confident that this announcement and the language used was part of the purchase deal.
uwuemu 4y ago
I have one question: Why THE HELL isn't this a part of all browsers already? Why does it have to be some obscure 3rd party extension? And I don't mean just Chrome, I mean all of them. All browsers should have this option: "I don't care about gdpr cookies". Set a window object window.dontcare and done. Sites can check this and automatically comfirm or don't even show gdpr banners if window.dontcare is set. This cookie bullcrap has been a forced on all of us from the bureaucrat bastards in the EU, and now everyone has to click on what are essentially popup banners of the 2000s every time they visit a new site (or even the same site a bit later!). Fuck that. No, let me say it again: FUCK THAT. Implementing this into a browser would be the biggest QOL improvement any web browser could possibly do at this point.
- rileymat2 4y ago
  There would be very little value to a website respecting that flag if it is a significant part of revenue.
  - WanderPanda 4y ago
    He is talking about window.dontcare not window.icare
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - 4y ago

xfalcox 4y ago

OH NO, this is my favorite extension. What to do now?

moviuro 4y ago
Write more filters for uBlock Origin and unbreak the web? e.g. https://github.com/AdguardTeam/AdguardFilters/tree/master/AnnoyancesFilter https://github.com/AdguardTeam/AdguardFilters/tree/master/An...
- awiesenhofer 4y ago
  Filters wont help you here, the extension actively clicked the consent forms for you, not something you can do with filter lists.
  - moviuro 4y ago
    No forms = no consent = unbroken Web.

yahooboi 4y ago

StephenSmith 4y ago

Is there a version of this product that tells the site to block all cookies automatically? It seems this just answers whatever is easiest to keep the site running.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

awiesenhofer 4y ago

Damn, this sucks! Anyone know of a good alternative? (No, UBOs annoyance/cookie filters dont come close sadly...)

parmezan 4y ago

Deinstalled. Very sad because this this extension made my life better. Any open source (FLOSS) alternative?

o_m 4y ago
You can active filters in ublock origin that blocks cookie banners. I think the one I'm using is "Fanboy’s Annoyance".
- dngray 4y ago
  THIS. Which is why we don't recommend extensions on privacyguides.org besides uBO (uBlock Origin). If that ever gets bought, you'll hear about it everywhere and there will most likely be a fork. These days for privacy with Firefox you really don't need anything else. There are a few others that may have something to offer https://github.com/arkenfox/user.js/wiki/4.1-Extensions https://github.com/arkenfox/user.js/wiki/4.1-Extensions for specific purposes.
  - Larrikin 4y ago
    I'd rather be actively hostile to the ads and tracking and use Ad Nauseum, instead of passively blocking them with just UbO
    - Semaphor 4y ago
      But then you also wouldn’t have been using this extension which defaulted to allowing all possible tracking when it couldn’t figure the popup out. This was an extension for people who don’t care about privacy.
      - wartijn_ 4y ago
        I have (had, soon) this add-on and I very much care a out privacy. Blocking all cookies from non-whitelisted sites is more or less impossible with all the consent pop ups. Ant many of those pop ups make it really hard to reject cookies. So I went for a solution that makes browsing less annoying, whithout storing many cookies: - Have this add on accept all cookies - Block third party cookies - Delete cookies from websites as soon as I close a tab I (and you) don't know if many users of this add on do something similar, but it is what's recommended on the website > Please educate yourself about cookie related privacy issues and ways to protect yourself and your data. For example, you can block 3rd party cookies, install ad blocking extensions and then block tracking tools, delete browsing data regularly, enable Tracking Protection in your browser etc.

omgmajk 4y ago

Time to deactivate. Shame.

marcodiego 4y ago

AFAIK the license is GPLv3. So avast is acquiring what exactly? The name?

Cthulhu_ 4y ago
The account in the extension store, and the ability to auto-update everyone's installed version for their own goals - whichever they may be.

aneutron 4y ago

So this URL just jumped to me opened by the extension. I instantly uninstalled it, and reported it to Mozilla. I hate that I have to, but I have to.

NeveHanter 4y ago

Well two things/questions: 1. Can we somehow get Mozilla/Firefox ban/de-list the extension from the extension store so Avast doesn't get the user-base this extension has/had? 2. We should be able to get the author to publish the source code of the latest version licensed under GPLv3, any way to do this, except asking on Twitter/LinkedIn?

edf13 4y ago
Why should you be able to get source code of someone’s private work?
- NeveHanter 4y ago
  If it's GPLv3 licensed, then I should be able to request and get the access to the source code: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MustSourceBuildToMatchExactHashOfBinary https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MustSourceBuildToM... and https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.txt https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.txt section 6, point d
  - Vinnl 4y ago
    That only applies to redistributors, not to the original author. The way the GPL works, is that the author absconds some of the copyright they hold by default, in exchange for people taking advantage of that committing to publishing even modified source code whenever they redistribute it.
    - MichaelCollins 4y ago
      Abscond means to hide or steal away. I think you mean abdicate? That would make more sense in this context. It's still not quite right though, the author of a GPL work fully retains the copyright of their work, and merely give a license to others.
      - Vinnl 4y ago

Probable8618 4y ago

loudandskittish 4y ago

"A cookie has been detected"

Probable8618 4y ago

The license is still GPLv3 so anyone can take the source code, slap it on GitHub and maintain a more community run alternative.

maccard 4y ago
> The license is still GPLv3 so anyone can take the source code, slap it on GitHub and maintain a more community run alternative. 2 out of 3 of those things are very easy, but "maintain a more community run alternative" is an enormous undertaking.

noasaservice 4y ago

Thank you for the plugin removal notice.

dessant 4y ago

This is your cue to remove the extension from your browser immediately. I've been developing extensions for years, and I've never seen an extension acquisition done by a company like Avast not transform the extension into a data harvesting operation. Judging by the size of the user base the author was paid at least 100k USD, all for an open source project that is free to fork. Avast has acquired you, the user, and the original maintainer continuing to work on the project is just a ruse, the new owners prefer to do it this way to reduce user loss until the business end of a future extension update is pushed out to your devices.

duxup 4y ago
It's kinda sad what the browser extension ecosystem has become. Seems like a neat hobbyist / handy tool space that quickly turned into a sorta predatory space.
- dessant 4y ago
  It's not just browser extensions, but any popular software project that has no stable funding source. This extension has been maintained for years, and it requires a lot of effort to keep updated because it interacts with websites. These developers are then offered funds for perhaps a new home, and they can hardly be faulted for taking the deal. This issue can only be solved by finding better ways to fund the development of popular software projects that serve the public good. https://armin.dev/blog/2019/08/supporting-browser-extension-developers/ https://armin.dev/blog/2019/08/supporting-browser-extension-...
  - duxup 4y ago
    So true. Rando popular freeware suddenly has an installer from hell and so on.
  - munk-a 4y ago
    I actually prefer the funding model where occasionally these free software developers do receive a big payday without any shame or stigma and a fork of their project is almost instantly launched under different branding. So Avast gets a one time user network buyout but the functionality of the tool persists in availability. Better funding for the project while it remains free is never a bad thing though, if you get a lot of value out of some free software you use please never forget to tip or even patreon/other-subscription-payment-plan its continued development!

soulofmischief 4y ago

I miss the days when antivirus protected against spyware and adware, now even your browser and OS get in on the game and employs hostile tricks.

_joel 4y ago
I wonder how many viruses were created by AV companies though? :)

margarina72 4y ago

ok, removed. Turns out ublock can do that too... On the bright side, Avast has less cash and some cool dev out there got to bank on its project.

meibo 4y ago

Avast is the worst of the worst snake oil AVs. I wouldn't let them anywhere near my browser.

Raed667 4y ago

I decompiled the extension a while back and it is a series of custom JS code for each website or CMP provider with matching rules. Only checked the bundled version but the code seemed very custom and labor intensive to keep up with website changes. Best of luck to future forks and maintainers. I didn't spend too much time on it, because a filter based approach seemed more maintainable.

t0bia_s 4y ago

Any alternatives? Cookies baners are incredibly annoying.

citruscomputing 4y ago
They have a filter list: https://www.i-dont-care-about-cookies.eu/abp/ https://www.i-dont-care-about-cookies.eu/abp/ If you have uBlock Origin, go to settings, filter lists, scroll to bottom, custom, import, paste this URL. Enable AdGuard annoyances while you're at it. It's not perfect, but this replicates the "don't show me cookie dialogs" feature pretty well.
- celsoazevedo 4y ago
  uBO doesn't accept or reject though and that is required for some sites to work. That's why I used this extension and uBO.
DavideNL 4y ago
This one perhaps? https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/consent-o-matic/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/consent-o-mat... https://github.com/cavi-au/Consent-O-Matic https://github.com/cavi-au/Consent-O-Matic
- DavideNL 4y ago
  Debloated fork of the extension "I don't care about cookies" (WIP) : https://github.com/OhMyGuus/I-Dont-Care-About-Cookies https://github.com/OhMyGuus/I-Dont-Care-About-Cookies

_joel 4y ago

That's me deleting it

keepquestioning 4y ago

The Web is a shitshow What does Brave do about the cookie crap?

InCityDreams 4y ago
? As a Brave user, what are you actually asking for? My Brave opened a window that told me about the purchase. So I read the comments, immediately uninstalled IDCAC and installed a different cookie monitor (meh!), but what do you want Brave to do? I think if you can articulate that, there will be some good responses and suggestions for alternatives.

walthamstow 4y ago

I have recovered and am hosting the source code for version 3.4.2, the version prior to the Avast acquisition, on GitHub at the following https://github.com/elgrove/idcac-3.4.2 https://github.com/elgrove/idcac-3.4.2 I am not well versed in open source licensing but I believe the GPL3 gives me permission to do this. Please could someone more knowledgeable confirm this for me. I am not a web developer, I'm hosting the code in the hope that someone else will take it and fork it. It's one of my favourite extensions and a day 1 install on any new machine, along with UBO

Oktokolo 4y ago
Yes, the GPL 3 grants you the right to do this.
stainablesteel 4y ago
yep you can do whatever you want with it
- dark-star 4y ago
  no, certainly not
- syockit 4y ago
  No, you only have the license, not the copyright. So you are permitted to redistribute the code as stipulated by the license, but you are not allowed to, for example, relicense existing code to something else like BSD (except for modifications that you made afterwards).
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

sttav 4y ago

Shit

MichaelCollins 4y ago

This is why I want a browser with an extension repository that is managed in the same way linux distros like debian manage their repositories. It should only allow open source extensions in the repository, packaged by employees or volunteers known to the organization. If the upstream gets sold to a malware company like Avast, that package is forked or simply removed from the repositories if a trusted maintainer for a fork cannot be found.

xg15 4y ago
I mean, take a look at how many projects recommend curl | sh as the official way of installing their software and how many "alternative" package managers there are, where devs can just push updates directly. The desire of developers to get around distro maintainers and grab full control of update distribution is strong...
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  I don't care about that. I am not asking for a browser or a linux distro that forbids the installation of extensions not in the repository. I want a browser that has a repository I can trust, as already exist for linux distros. I cannot trust either Mozilla or Google's extension repositories, they are 'managed' in a substandard manner relative to Debian or android's F-Droid. Both of these extension repositories are managed so poorly it seems farcical to say they're managed at all.
  - xg15 4y ago
    In the current case, the extension used to be perfectly trustworthy, then it got sold with the full permission of the author. I'd like such a repository too, but the "extensions going bad" dynamic usually happens with the full cooperation of the extension's developer, so I could imagine many extension developers would be actively opposed to such a repo. Therefore, the browser would have to possibly act against the wishes of the developers here and e.g. keep an earlier version of an extension available even if the developer would like to remove it.

sttav 4y ago

What a shame. Uninstalled.

zac23or 4y ago

Avast - a famous and trustworthy IT company. You can call Avast many things, but a "trustworthy IT company." is not one of those things.

rektide 4y ago

Consent-o-mattic and Auto Cookie Optout are both pretty good. They also let you block rather tham accept all cookies. Wild to me that the accept all cookies extension has been the winning one, but they have a cute name. You should care though, caring is cool & good, & you should care about privacy online & reducing the vast capitalist-survelliance machinery. It's easy, just use a non apathetic extension instead of one whose whole premise has been apathy. (I hear uBlock Origin has an anti-annoyance filter or filters that does something to deal with cookie banners but unsure what.) https://github.com/cavi-au/Consent-O-Matic https://github.com/cavi-au/Consent-O-Matic https://github.com/CodyMcCodington/AutoCookieOptout https://github.com/CodyMcCodington/AutoCookieOptout

DavideNL 4y ago

Interesting to see the reviews... : https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/i-dont-care-about-cookies/reviews/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/i-dont-care-a...

omgmajk 4y ago
It's the same thing on the google chrome store. The link I get from there seems personalized so can't share it, but it's still funny.

pornel 4y ago

There's https://ninja-cookie.com/ https://ninja-cookie.com/ alternative.

rizoma_dev 4y ago

Does anyone have any alternative extensions to it?

phendrenad2 4y ago

If the community really cares, raise some money and buy it back from them.

no-reply 4y ago

If you are on 3.4.2 from 12-Aug-22, then a better option can be to disable auto update for the extension.

no-reply 4y ago

I like how everyone is quick in stating the GPLv3 license and asking somebody to maintain it. I know I can't do that either but looking at everybody pointing fingers is funny.

eigenlicht 4y ago

Feels almost like the end of that part of the internet to me. ;) Or like with electricity or even drinking water, where you no longer realize how essential something is, until it fails. CoM, or what a this point appears most recommended, unfortunately doesn't do the trick for me, though I appreciate all efforts of course. Doesn't even work on BBC or Guardian, let alone on German sites that's where I'm based. Even when and where it does something, seems you still get to see everyting that's going on, there's a silly animation and it takes ages. Ages. Don't get me wrong but this is a step backward unless you're fantastically slow, and/or mouse-bound. I have the impression it's rendered all the more useless since I'm "private" mode only user (Firefox) and used to close windows often. Obviously still a better choice than IDCAC now. Anything is. But no way out for me. Until there is, I might as well go text browser only, for news, wikipedia and passive reading of stuff like HN.

InCityDreams 4y ago

Fastest uninstall ever.