9 ms·

I recommend using an ad-blocker while visiting that site :-/ Lately, I find myself using more and more plugins to make the "modern web" tolerable. To list a fe

I recommend using an ad-blocker while visiting that site :-/ Lately, I find myself using more and more plugins to make the "modern web" tolerable. To list a few: Channel Blocker (lets me block channels from search results on Youtube); uBlock Origin; Disconnect; F.B Purity; Consent-O-Matic (auto fill cookie consent forms); Kagi Search; PopUpOFF; Facebook Container; Privacy Badger; ClearURLs; Return YouTube Dislike Basically, if I visit a website and don't like the experience, I either never go back (Kagi lets me exclude it from search results) or find a plugin to make it tolerable. What I really want now is the ability to exclude entire websites from any permissions I grant to plugins. I feel like in the last year, I've read a couple stories about companies buying successful plugins and then using them to track you or show ads or whatever. I'm worried this will be the next stage in the battle for our attention -- best case: companies will buy popular plugins to track us and show us intrusive ads; worst case: nefarious actors will buy them to scrape information we think is private and collect it. IE: I just want to be able to say "Hey, Firefox... those permissions that I granted to plugins x, y, and z? They don't apply to www.myfavoritebank.example.com" Is there a browser that has that feature yet? I spent a few hours trying to figure out if Firefox did. It did not appear to. edit: Added semicolons to separate plugins in list b/c HN stripped the newlines from my comment.

Groxx 4y ago
Yeah, the permission model in browser plugins is all kinds of messed up. In absolutely no way is it the plugin's decision where it should be allowed to run. It's great if it self-restricts and we should encourage that, but it's absurd in the extreme that any version of plugin support ever shipped without a way for users to override and restrict them further. Trusting the author of a thing to do what they claim to do is literal security insanity, and it always has been. Chrome is sightly improving here, with click-to-activate extensions, but it's still pretty far from just giving me a frickin list field.
kfoley 4y ago
> Is there a browser that has that feature yet? I spent a few hours trying to figure out if Firefox did. It did not appear to. I believe this will be supported by manifest v3 extensions in Firefox[1] which is one of the features I'm looking forward to for the same reason. [1]: https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2022/10/31/begin-your-mv3-migration-by-implementing-new-features-today/ https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2022/10/31/begin-your-mv3-mi...
eNV25 4y ago
A lot of your privacy related extensions are obsoleted by features in uBlock Origin. Consent-O-Matic: use annoyances filter list PopUpOFF: sounds useless, use filter list Privacy Badger: sounds useless, use filter list ClearURLs: use url cleaning filter list
- emacdona 4y ago
  Thanks for the tips. I will check out the filter lists you mention. You might be wrong about PopUpOFF, though. I started using it as a solution to websites that pop-up an overlay asking me to subscribe to their newsletter when I mouse-out of the window. It is fantastic at putting an end to that.
- doodlesdev 4y ago
  uBlock Origin URL filter lists don't work the same as ClearURLs. Privacy Badger is an extension by the EFF. It blocks cookies, that's it. The other one I don't know, but you should stop being condescending when teaching people about things you don't know about. Using uBlock Origin only might be a good option for some cases, but it's not a silver bullet. For reference, ClearURLs can bypass redirects, has etags protection, both features which uBlock origin does not have (or at least didn't have last time I checked). Privacy Badger removes outgoing link tracking by Facebook and Google, has custom well-tested lists to block cookies or blocking third-party without blocking them entirely when necessary/useful. It also has quite a few smart learning features (not the ones Google tells are "fingerprinting" you) such as blocking canvas-based fingerprinting on the go. uBlock Origin is awesome. The default blocking lists are great. The other ones provided with the extension are even better. But it's not a magic silver bullet. What you're going to use really depends on what you want out of your browsing experience, what your threat model is, etc.
  - nelox 4y ago
    How does Ghostery compare?
    - dngray 4y ago
      It's also redundant, just use uBlock Origin.
emacdona 4y ago
For anyone curious as to how I solve the problem right now, I just have two separate Firefox profiles. One has a ton of plugins; I use it to browse the web. The other has no plugins; I use it to visit my bank's website.
- mmgutz 4y ago
  How is no plugins different than private browsing, assuming you don't allow plugins in private browsing. Is private browsing too strict?
  - emacdona 4y ago
    That's a good question. I don't know -- I never considered private browsing. If I close a private browsing session, are all traces (ie: cookies, history, etc.) of it erased? If so, I don't think that's what I want. I'm okay with my bank (and websites I trust) setting cookies, for example.
    - ketzo 4y ago
      Yeah, private browsing / private session / incognito mode will stop you from storing cookies and session data.
    - SargeDebian 4y ago
      Sure, but my bank and (like most other highly trusted sites) doesn’t set any useful cookies anyway. I think there is an option to autofill my username, but why bother if my password manager does that anyway?
  - pigsty 4y ago
    If I open something in private browsing, that’s a time where I especially want every bit of BS blocked.
- bdlowery 4y ago
  I do the same, but because I think it’s important to see what the average use will when using the web. Especially if you’re working professionally with the web in anyway.
nulbyte 4y ago
> Channel Blocker (lets me block channels from search results on Youtube)... I wish this were possible for the phone app. Every now and then I am recommended a video from one YouTuber in particular that I can't stand. Is there an app for that? I don't think you can block within YouTube, which would be great.
- emacdona 4y ago
  I don't think so (I looked). Best I could find was some articles online claiming you can add "-unwantedChannel '...'" to your YouTube search to exclude individual channels. I didn't even test it because it would be WAY to cumbersome. Maybe that's all Channel Blocker does under the covers -- add a bunch of those switches to my search. What frustrates me the most is that this is one place where mine and Google's interests actually align! Let me help train them to not show me crap I don't want to see... then I'll use their products (YouTube and Search) more and give them more opportunities to show me ads! (Well, theoretically -- I block as many ads as I can right now). That was one of the big reasons I looked for an alternative to Google search. IIRC, you used to be able to exclude results from Google search. In order to do so, you HAD TO LOGIN TO GOOGLE (another huge win for Google!). Now I use Kagi -- primarily because they allow me to exclude sites from their search results.
  - rcarr 4y ago
    Doesn't help for searching for new stuff, but you can subscribe to channels using rss feeds. From my experience, it helps avoid getting sucked down the YouTube rabbit hole
    - pmoriarty 4y ago
      You can almost certainly be uniquely identified from the combination of feeds your RSS reader polls regularly, combined with your location, if the feeds alone are not enough. The more feeds you subscribe to, the more unique your fingerprint.
      - rcarr 4y ago
panarky 4y ago
Do you use a password manager? Do you visit websites for banks or brokerage firms? If so, how do you ensure that none of these plugins and extensions steal your data?
- emacdona 4y ago
  Heh, you got me. A password manager is the ONE plugin I have installed in my profile that I use to access my banks. Simply put, I trust the password manager. Recently, however, I have considered uninstalling that plugin and using only the desktop version of the password manager -- and then copy/pasting username/pw from the password manager to websites. One reason I don't do that, though... is because having the password manager as a browser plugin guarantees (?) that the password it presents to me is for the site I am visiting. If I end up on a webiste with an IDN that was chosen very carefully to look like my bank's domain, my password manager plugin won't present me with a password -- which will trigger my paranoia. If you can't tell, I wrestle with this decision pretty regularly...
  - TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
    Use the built-in browser password manager. It is safe and it only auto fills for the correct URL… exactly what you mentioned. You should be able to export from your current PW manager and import into the browser’s. Then turn on browser sync to make sure those passwords are available on all browser instances.
    - nidnogg 4y ago
      This is the last thing I expected to see on HN but after reading this I have to ask - is it ever remotely safe? Asking for a friend.
      - TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
        Absolutely. Much safer than a browser extension (source: I’m an ex-Mozilla engineer)
  - 4y ago
dngray 4y ago
> Consent-O-Matic (auto fill cookie consent forms) This will modify the browser fringerprint making you more unique. I would not install so many extensions as you're trusting a huge number of organizations/people with privileged access to your browser. Anything that modifies CSS, Document Object Model (DOM) will make your browser stand out. We wrote a blog post about this: https://blog.privacyguides.org/2021/12/01/firefox-privacy-2021-update/ https://blog.privacyguides.org/2021/12/01/firefox-privacy-20... That includes any extensions that modify what is requested etc. See: https://github.com/arkenfox/user.js/wiki/4.1-Extensions https://github.com/arkenfox/user.js/wiki/4.1-Extensions See https://www.privacyguides.org/desktop-browsers/#firefox https://www.privacyguides.org/desktop-browsers/#firefox, you really don't need to do anything more than that. > Facebook Container etc, not needed unless you login to multiple Facebook accounts. > Disconnect Not needed, you should enable Firefox's ETP Enhanced Tracking Protection, this includes anything on that list. https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/enhanced-tracking-protection-firefox-desktop#w_what-enhanced-tracking-protection-blocks https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/enhanced-tracking-prote...
- pmoriarty 4y ago
  Trying to avoid tracking on the modern web is a losing battle for any but the most hyperparanoid, consistently careful, and technically astute individuals. For everyone else: you're going to leak identity information one way or another, and it's going to get correlated. The more plugged-in and connected you are, the harder it is to remain anonymous. If you really value your privacy, don't use the internet or any types of computers, including phones, and never go outside. It's a cat and mouse game, and the cats have won.
  - Psype 4y ago
    I wish I'd have a plugin that makes the difference before/after accepting cookie consent, always accept, and always flush them between pages. I know by experience that the key isn't about refusing them, but letting them having those "user accepted" KPI values, even if it goes nowhere behind.
    - 4y ago
samplatt 4y ago
>Lately, I find myself using more and more plugins to make the "modern web" tolerable. Once upon a time, we used programs to guard against malware. AdAware, ccleaner, a whole bunch of them. I feel so old calling them "programs" here, instead of apps or extensions.
fIREpOK 4y ago
Nice list. I also like Awesome RSS to bring back Firefox's RSS feed finder, Old Reddit Reddirect (brings back old reddit), Search By Image, Theater Mode For Youtube, User-Agent Switcher, Youtube-shorts Blocker (you can still view them, but the layout is the same as a normal video), View Image Context Menu, Smart Referer (adds a bit of privacy)
emsixteen 4y ago
I currently use an add-on to block search engine results (Highlight or Hide Search Engine Results[1]) so Kagi sounded interesting, but the free tier having a limit of 50 searches puts it out of the realm of even giving it a trial period for me. I really like the idea about a sort of global blacklist for your permissions. [1] https://github.com/pistom/hohser https://github.com/pistom/hohser
- emacdona 4y ago
  Yeah, I should have mentioned that Kagi isn't free. I was _thrilled_ to pay for it, though base on just two things: 1. I was all but certain it couldn't provide worse search results than Google (that bar is pretty low now). 2. I knew it would let me exclude websites from search results. The fact that it provides pretty decent search results and a nice user experience were just icing on the cake.
deafpolygon 4y ago
This is basically the route I'm taking. It's unfortunate, but the web looks godawful without.
alwayslikethis 4y ago
I use most of what you are using, but with temporary containers on Firefox, meaning that all the cookies from random sites are not persistent, so I don't need to worry too much about unwanted tracking. When I do want to let a website keep cookies, I just assign it to a specific container. There is also SponsorBlock to save time on YouTube and Libredirect to use privacy respecting frontends.
weikju 4y ago
> IE: I just want to be able to say "Hey, Firefox... those permissions that I granted to plugins x, y, and z? They don't apply to www.myfavoritebank.example.com" > Is there a browser that has that feature yet? I spent a few hours trying to figure out if Firefox did. It did not appear to. Safari has the ability to enable/disable extension on a per-site basis... Even on a "ask every time" basis. Thankfully the ask shows up as a lock badge on the extension's icon rather than a popup.
Xenoamorphous 4y ago
> Basically, if I visit a website and don't like the experience, I either never go back (Kagi lets me exclude it from search results) or find a plugin to make it tolerable. If you like a site to go back to it repeatedly don't you think it would be fair to "pay the fee" of seeing the ads, thus supporting that site, however annoying they are?
- VerminOctopus1 4y ago
  No. Find another way to monetize your website if you want my money. I’m not enduring ads, they are insidious garbage.
  - quickthrower2 4y ago
    I agree. If you want the benefits of hypertext and http as a medium then the downside is user agents can modify what you send and render as they see fit.
    - Xenoamorphous 4y ago
      This has nothing to do with the technical aspect of it.
  - Xenoamorphous 4y ago
    Like what, a paywall? So only people with disposable income like the HN crowd has access to information?
    - mcv 4y ago
      Patreon for voluntary donations seems to be working quite well. Also affiliate links and custom ads that are actually approved by the site creator.
- emacdona 4y ago
  > If you like a site to go back to it repeatedly don't you think it would be fair to "pay the fee" of seeing the ads, thus supporting that site... I struggle with this. Of course I want the producers of content that I like to make money. And it seems obvious to me that if I'm one of the people consuming (and liking) that content... some of that money I want them to make should come from me. But the pipeline that the "modern web" provides to complete that transaction is openly hostile towards me. It makes content creators that I want to support participants in a giant machine designed to build a dossier on me (and every other user of the "modern web"). It also encourages VERY LARGE numbers of content creators I do not want to support -- those whose primary goal is to be participant in that machine; who only produce content because the machine requires it. I would argue that this machine has never built this dossier with my "informed" consent (but lawyers could make the case that it has). But now, the machine builds it without even bothering to get my "uninformed" consent. For example: Facebook is known to build profiles on people that don't have Facebook accounts -- ie: people that could never have agreed to their TOS. The top priority of this giant machine is putting ads in front of my face. Helping me discover content that I want to consume is only a secondary priority. And there is a GOOD reason for why this machine evolved: people don't want to pay money _directly_ to content creators, so a way evolved for them to receive compensation _indirectly_. So yes, this is -- at least in part -- my (our) fault. But I really feel like things have shifted to the point where the large majority of compensation that content creators receive is a function of their value to that machine... not a function of the value they create for the people who consume their content. This is all a very long way of saying: I don't believe the value of a content creator _to me_ should be calculated based on their value _to this machine_. I don't know what the solution is. Find a way to accurately assess the value _to me_, not _to the machine_ -- and then provide a way for me to pay the content creator directly. If I like the content enough -- and IF I'm not shown ads or tracked once I'm a paying customer -- I will pay. This is how newspapers worked for... centuries? (Save that newspapers did show ads, though they did not track you). The problem is... I think that being part of the machine is more lucrative than selling content directly to consumers. And the hostility of this machine towards me has turned this into a fight. Of course I'm going to fight back. > ...however annoying they are? This is where you start to lose me. I don't think "annoying" captures just how "hostile" this machine has become. I'm old enough to remember switching from Yahoo Search to Google Search -- NOT because the results were better, but because Google's ads were less intrusive. I never blocked those ads. I even clicked a few...
bottled_poe 4y ago
It’s starting to feel like a content whitelist would be easier than a content blacklist.
class3shock 4y ago
Slightly off topic but I've been wishing Youtube would add something like Channel Blocker forever, thank you for mentioning it. Do you use anything that lets you improve Youtube recommendations? They've become almost completely useless for finding new content, only showing videos I've seen and/or videos from channels I already follow.

Groxx 4y ago

Yeah, the permission model in browser plugins is all kinds of messed up. In absolutely no way is it the plugin's decision where it should be allowed to run. It's great if it self-restricts and we should encourage that, but it's absurd in the extreme that any version of plugin support ever shipped without a way for users to override and restrict them further. Trusting the author of a thing to do what they claim to do is literal security insanity, and it always has been. Chrome is sightly improving here, with click-to-activate extensions, but it's still pretty far from just giving me a frickin list field.

kfoley 4y ago

> Is there a browser that has that feature yet? I spent a few hours trying to figure out if Firefox did. It did not appear to. I believe this will be supported by manifest v3 extensions in Firefox[1] which is one of the features I'm looking forward to for the same reason. [1]: https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2022/10/31/begin-your-mv3-migration-by-implementing-new-features-today/ https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2022/10/31/begin-your-mv3-mi...

eNV25 4y ago

A lot of your privacy related extensions are obsoleted by features in uBlock Origin. Consent-O-Matic: use annoyances filter list PopUpOFF: sounds useless, use filter list Privacy Badger: sounds useless, use filter list ClearURLs: use url cleaning filter list

emacdona 4y ago
Thanks for the tips. I will check out the filter lists you mention. You might be wrong about PopUpOFF, though. I started using it as a solution to websites that pop-up an overlay asking me to subscribe to their newsletter when I mouse-out of the window. It is fantastic at putting an end to that.
doodlesdev 4y ago
uBlock Origin URL filter lists don't work the same as ClearURLs. Privacy Badger is an extension by the EFF. It blocks cookies, that's it. The other one I don't know, but you should stop being condescending when teaching people about things you don't know about. Using uBlock Origin only might be a good option for some cases, but it's not a silver bullet. For reference, ClearURLs can bypass redirects, has etags protection, both features which uBlock origin does not have (or at least didn't have last time I checked). Privacy Badger removes outgoing link tracking by Facebook and Google, has custom well-tested lists to block cookies or blocking third-party without blocking them entirely when necessary/useful. It also has quite a few smart learning features (not the ones Google tells are "fingerprinting" you) such as blocking canvas-based fingerprinting on the go. uBlock Origin is awesome. The default blocking lists are great. The other ones provided with the extension are even better. But it's not a magic silver bullet. What you're going to use really depends on what you want out of your browsing experience, what your threat model is, etc.
- nelox 4y ago
  How does Ghostery compare?
  - dngray 4y ago
    It's also redundant, just use uBlock Origin.

emacdona 4y ago

For anyone curious as to how I solve the problem right now, I just have two separate Firefox profiles. One has a ton of plugins; I use it to browse the web. The other has no plugins; I use it to visit my bank's website.

mmgutz 4y ago
How is no plugins different than private browsing, assuming you don't allow plugins in private browsing. Is private browsing too strict?
- emacdona 4y ago
  That's a good question. I don't know -- I never considered private browsing. If I close a private browsing session, are all traces (ie: cookies, history, etc.) of it erased? If so, I don't think that's what I want. I'm okay with my bank (and websites I trust) setting cookies, for example.
  - ketzo 4y ago
    Yeah, private browsing / private session / incognito mode will stop you from storing cookies and session data.
  - SargeDebian 4y ago
    Sure, but my bank and (like most other highly trusted sites) doesn’t set any useful cookies anyway. I think there is an option to autofill my username, but why bother if my password manager does that anyway?
- pigsty 4y ago
  If I open something in private browsing, that’s a time where I especially want every bit of BS blocked.
bdlowery 4y ago
I do the same, but because I think it’s important to see what the average use will when using the web. Especially if you’re working professionally with the web in anyway.

nulbyte 4y ago

> Channel Blocker (lets me block channels from search results on Youtube)... I wish this were possible for the phone app. Every now and then I am recommended a video from one YouTuber in particular that I can't stand. Is there an app for that? I don't think you can block within YouTube, which would be great.

emacdona 4y ago
I don't think so (I looked). Best I could find was some articles online claiming you can add "-unwantedChannel '...'" to your YouTube search to exclude individual channels. I didn't even test it because it would be WAY to cumbersome. Maybe that's all Channel Blocker does under the covers -- add a bunch of those switches to my search. What frustrates me the most is that this is one place where mine and Google's interests actually align! Let me help train them to not show me crap I don't want to see... then I'll use their products (YouTube and Search) more and give them more opportunities to show me ads! (Well, theoretically -- I block as many ads as I can right now). That was one of the big reasons I looked for an alternative to Google search. IIRC, you used to be able to exclude results from Google search. In order to do so, you HAD TO LOGIN TO GOOGLE (another huge win for Google!). Now I use Kagi -- primarily because they allow me to exclude sites from their search results.
- rcarr 4y ago
  Doesn't help for searching for new stuff, but you can subscribe to channels using rss feeds. From my experience, it helps avoid getting sucked down the YouTube rabbit hole
  - pmoriarty 4y ago
    You can almost certainly be uniquely identified from the combination of feeds your RSS reader polls regularly, combined with your location, if the feeds alone are not enough. The more feeds you subscribe to, the more unique your fingerprint.
    - rcarr 4y ago

panarky 4y ago

Do you use a password manager? Do you visit websites for banks or brokerage firms? If so, how do you ensure that none of these plugins and extensions steal your data?

emacdona 4y ago
Heh, you got me. A password manager is the ONE plugin I have installed in my profile that I use to access my banks. Simply put, I trust the password manager. Recently, however, I have considered uninstalling that plugin and using only the desktop version of the password manager -- and then copy/pasting username/pw from the password manager to websites. One reason I don't do that, though... is because having the password manager as a browser plugin guarantees (?) that the password it presents to me is for the site I am visiting. If I end up on a webiste with an IDN that was chosen very carefully to look like my bank's domain, my password manager plugin won't present me with a password -- which will trigger my paranoia. If you can't tell, I wrestle with this decision pretty regularly...
- TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
  Use the built-in browser password manager. It is safe and it only auto fills for the correct URL… exactly what you mentioned. You should be able to export from your current PW manager and import into the browser’s. Then turn on browser sync to make sure those passwords are available on all browser instances.
  - nidnogg 4y ago
    This is the last thing I expected to see on HN but after reading this I have to ask - is it ever remotely safe? Asking for a friend.
    - TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
      Absolutely. Much safer than a browser extension (source: I’m an ex-Mozilla engineer)
- 4y ago

dngray 4y ago

> Consent-O-Matic (auto fill cookie consent forms) This will modify the browser fringerprint making you more unique. I would not install so many extensions as you're trusting a huge number of organizations/people with privileged access to your browser. Anything that modifies CSS, Document Object Model (DOM) will make your browser stand out. We wrote a blog post about this: https://blog.privacyguides.org/2021/12/01/firefox-privacy-2021-update/ https://blog.privacyguides.org/2021/12/01/firefox-privacy-20... That includes any extensions that modify what is requested etc. See: https://github.com/arkenfox/user.js/wiki/4.1-Extensions https://github.com/arkenfox/user.js/wiki/4.1-Extensions See https://www.privacyguides.org/desktop-browsers/#firefox https://www.privacyguides.org/desktop-browsers/#firefox, you really don't need to do anything more than that. > Facebook Container etc, not needed unless you login to multiple Facebook accounts. > Disconnect Not needed, you should enable Firefox's ETP Enhanced Tracking Protection, this includes anything on that list. https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/enhanced-tracking-protection-firefox-desktop#w_what-enhanced-tracking-protection-blocks https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/enhanced-tracking-prote...

pmoriarty 4y ago
Trying to avoid tracking on the modern web is a losing battle for any but the most hyperparanoid, consistently careful, and technically astute individuals. For everyone else: you're going to leak identity information one way or another, and it's going to get correlated. The more plugged-in and connected you are, the harder it is to remain anonymous. If you really value your privacy, don't use the internet or any types of computers, including phones, and never go outside. It's a cat and mouse game, and the cats have won.
- Psype 4y ago
  I wish I'd have a plugin that makes the difference before/after accepting cookie consent, always accept, and always flush them between pages. I know by experience that the key isn't about refusing them, but letting them having those "user accepted" KPI values, even if it goes nowhere behind.
  - 4y ago

samplatt 4y ago

>Lately, I find myself using more and more plugins to make the "modern web" tolerable. Once upon a time, we used programs to guard against malware. AdAware, ccleaner, a whole bunch of them. I feel so old calling them "programs" here, instead of apps or extensions.

fIREpOK 4y ago

Nice list. I also like Awesome RSS to bring back Firefox's RSS feed finder, Old Reddit Reddirect (brings back old reddit), Search By Image, Theater Mode For Youtube, User-Agent Switcher, Youtube-shorts Blocker (you can still view them, but the layout is the same as a normal video), View Image Context Menu, Smart Referer (adds a bit of privacy)

emsixteen 4y ago

I currently use an add-on to block search engine results (Highlight or Hide Search Engine Results[1]) so Kagi sounded interesting, but the free tier having a limit of 50 searches puts it out of the realm of even giving it a trial period for me. I really like the idea about a sort of global blacklist for your permissions. [1] https://github.com/pistom/hohser https://github.com/pistom/hohser

emacdona 4y ago
Yeah, I should have mentioned that Kagi isn't free. I was _thrilled_ to pay for it, though base on just two things: 1. I was all but certain it couldn't provide worse search results than Google (that bar is pretty low now). 2. I knew it would let me exclude websites from search results. The fact that it provides pretty decent search results and a nice user experience were just icing on the cake.

deafpolygon 4y ago

This is basically the route I'm taking. It's unfortunate, but the web looks godawful without.

alwayslikethis 4y ago

I use most of what you are using, but with temporary containers on Firefox, meaning that all the cookies from random sites are not persistent, so I don't need to worry too much about unwanted tracking. When I do want to let a website keep cookies, I just assign it to a specific container. There is also SponsorBlock to save time on YouTube and Libredirect to use privacy respecting frontends.

weikju 4y ago

> IE: I just want to be able to say "Hey, Firefox... those permissions that I granted to plugins x, y, and z? They don't apply to www.myfavoritebank.example.com" > Is there a browser that has that feature yet? I spent a few hours trying to figure out if Firefox did. It did not appear to. Safari has the ability to enable/disable extension on a per-site basis... Even on a "ask every time" basis. Thankfully the ask shows up as a lock badge on the extension's icon rather than a popup.

Xenoamorphous 4y ago

> Basically, if I visit a website and don't like the experience, I either never go back (Kagi lets me exclude it from search results) or find a plugin to make it tolerable. If you like a site to go back to it repeatedly don't you think it would be fair to "pay the fee" of seeing the ads, thus supporting that site, however annoying they are?

VerminOctopus1 4y ago
No. Find another way to monetize your website if you want my money. I’m not enduring ads, they are insidious garbage.
- quickthrower2 4y ago
  I agree. If you want the benefits of hypertext and http as a medium then the downside is user agents can modify what you send and render as they see fit.
  - Xenoamorphous 4y ago
    This has nothing to do with the technical aspect of it.
- Xenoamorphous 4y ago
  Like what, a paywall? So only people with disposable income like the HN crowd has access to information?
  - mcv 4y ago
    Patreon for voluntary donations seems to be working quite well. Also affiliate links and custom ads that are actually approved by the site creator.
emacdona 4y ago
> If you like a site to go back to it repeatedly don't you think it would be fair to "pay the fee" of seeing the ads, thus supporting that site... I struggle with this. Of course I want the producers of content that I like to make money. And it seems obvious to me that if I'm one of the people consuming (and liking) that content... some of that money I want them to make should come from me. But the pipeline that the "modern web" provides to complete that transaction is openly hostile towards me. It makes content creators that I want to support participants in a giant machine designed to build a dossier on me (and every other user of the "modern web"). It also encourages VERY LARGE numbers of content creators I do not want to support -- those whose primary goal is to be participant in that machine; who only produce content because the machine requires it. I would argue that this machine has never built this dossier with my "informed" consent (but lawyers could make the case that it has). But now, the machine builds it without even bothering to get my "uninformed" consent. For example: Facebook is known to build profiles on people that don't have Facebook accounts -- ie: people that could never have agreed to their TOS. The top priority of this giant machine is putting ads in front of my face. Helping me discover content that I want to consume is only a secondary priority. And there is a GOOD reason for why this machine evolved: people don't want to pay money _directly_ to content creators, so a way evolved for them to receive compensation _indirectly_. So yes, this is -- at least in part -- my (our) fault. But I really feel like things have shifted to the point where the large majority of compensation that content creators receive is a function of their value to that machine... not a function of the value they create for the people who consume their content. This is all a very long way of saying: I don't believe the value of a content creator _to me_ should be calculated based on their value _to this machine_. I don't know what the solution is. Find a way to accurately assess the value _to me_, not _to the machine_ -- and then provide a way for me to pay the content creator directly. If I like the content enough -- and IF I'm not shown ads or tracked once I'm a paying customer -- I will pay. This is how newspapers worked for... centuries? (Save that newspapers did show ads, though they did not track you). The problem is... I think that being part of the machine is more lucrative than selling content directly to consumers. And the hostility of this machine towards me has turned this into a fight. Of course I'm going to fight back. > ...however annoying they are? This is where you start to lose me. I don't think "annoying" captures just how "hostile" this machine has become. I'm old enough to remember switching from Yahoo Search to Google Search -- NOT because the results were better, but because Google's ads were less intrusive. I never blocked those ads. I even clicked a few...

bottled_poe 4y ago

It’s starting to feel like a content whitelist would be easier than a content blacklist.

class3shock 4y ago

Slightly off topic but I've been wishing Youtube would add something like Channel Blocker forever, thank you for mentioning it. Do you use anything that lets you improve Youtube recommendations? They've become almost completely useless for finding new content, only showing videos I've seen and/or videos from channels I already follow.