Hacker News Reader

Comment by bee_rider | Hacker News Reader

I think it doesn’t even need to be a “try to achieve” type thing. I’ll happily leave if a site doesn’t want to serve me without ads. I’m not interested in a technical back and forth.

I wish sites would stop with the nag pop-ups and all that junk.

Ideally, sites’ link generators would have a means of labeling their links as “ad-required” and our browsers could just be programmed to not render them. Link aggregation sites like Hackernews could just not show those sites to users that don’t want them. If a site requires a GDPR tracking pop-up, I just don’t want it to show up in my duck-duck-go searches.

It is annoying that it is a battle. We have two parties that just don’t want to do business with each other. I get that many sites are ad-supported and I wish they could be hidden so that I could more easily find the other ones.

View on HN

> I wish sites would stop with the nag pop-ups and all that junk.

Just go to the Filter Lists tab in your uBlock Origin settings and check these groups:

* AdGuard - Annoyances

* uBlock filters - Annoyances

If you still see nags anywhere after enabling these lists, please click on the extension button and use the report option (the speech bubble icon).

It isn’t that I don’t like the nags. I don’t want the part of the internet that needs the nags to get in the way of my view of the good part.

> If a site requires a GDPR tracking pop-up

Not sure I understand that particular hill for dying on. If they aren't legally required to give you a choice, they're just going to be tracking you unconditionally.

Who’s dying on a hill? They can have that hill if they want to die for it!

GDPR is great, sites should be required to ask to track. But if they start asking, most sites, I’d rather just leave.

I'm asking why because I don't understand and I would like to understand your perspective. With my current understanding, that seems like a strict downgrade.

What's so hard to understand?

They'd rather filter sites that track in the first place.

Sure today, in a world that developed without that, that would remove most of the internet, but so what?

That just means their principle vs practical set point lands on a different part of the scale than you, but so does everyone's vs everyone else's.

It's a great idea to imagine, if that were somehow possible and the norm, would it still be most of the internet? Would good old unprincipled pragmatic market forces not result in most sites somehow finding a way to be in front of everyone's eyes?

I believe their point is that only sites that are tracking you are legally required to give you a choice.

Plenty of sites ignore GDPR, some sites will GDPR just to CYA, some sites have cookie popups just to be polite, "Site with GDPR popup" in reality is a very poor analog for "site that wants to track me." Most sites that want to, especially for those not in the EU, just will, no questions asked.

> Most sites that want to, especially for those not in the EU, just will, no questions asked.

Maybe for most sites, but not for most site visits, since people mostly visit just a few large sites that are too big to ignore the law.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com