Hacker News Reader

HNHacker News

Top New Best Ask Show Jobs

Comment by solarkraft | Hacker News Reader

Full thread

solarkraft·

Thanks, this is useful. Now my list of annoying internet content I wish for blockers for looks like this:

- Chat popups: Solved

- GDPR popups: Unsolved

- In-Page popups: Unsolved (get our newsletter, xd)

- Notifications: Semi-solved

(- Clickbait-blocker [All caps titles, listicles, stupid questions, annoying thumbnails]: Unsolved)

If anyone could help me with these I'd be very, very grateful.

View on HN

uBlock Origin has a lot of suggested rule lists to subscribe to, including those made for general annoyances. I have found that the country-specific sometimes also do these things instead of only ads.

Not sure it would solve all your problems, but can recommend to look it up. Really easy to add more rules yourself, and consider making pull requests if you find other things to block.

awesome thanks for mentioning prs

GDPR is good for you. It is for your benefit to be able choose what is stored on the website about you.

It is the websites that are making the banner look so annoying just to make you quickly click "OK, I agree" button.

Consent must be obtained for tracking, right? The law requires that it's opt-in?

So when the GDPR is properly enforced and implemented, there should be no difference to the end user between blocking these content elements vs. clicking No or ignoring the element, as the default is that consent has not been given.

Yes, consent must be given, and it should be a positive action. Inaction, pre-checked boxes does not qualify.

I wonder how many sites actually use the banner's "OK" BEFORE they inject the ads and analytics scripts.

Dude, I know. It's the clicking through the "learn more" links and other disguised buttons and mazes to disagree that anger me, while it could be a program doing it. Additionally, if the user just doesn't answer, the assumption must be no consent.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com