672
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] mic_check_one_two@lemmy.dbzer0.com 292 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

Tired of those annoying cookie banners? They’re not just frustrating—they're a lazy response to GDPR.

They’re not lazy, they’re maliciously compliant. The sites know how to comply with GDPR, but wanted to throw a fit instead. So they came up with the annoying cookie banners, to make users hate GDPR instead of hating the sites that were stealing and selling all of their data. And the worst part is that it worked. Many people wholly equate GDPR with the cookie banners, instead of the massive leap in privacy rights that it represented when it was passed.

[-] Kissaki@feddit.org 136 points 5 days ago

They’re not lazy, they’re maliciously compliant.

Often times they're not even compliant.

[-] chunes@lemmy.world 48 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

It's a lot easier to dislike GDPR when you don't live in a country that benefits from it, but it still annoys you.

[-] AstaKask@lemmy.cafe 38 points 5 days ago

GDPR doesn't annoy anyone. The incompetent developers who made the banners do. There is absolutely no need for them.

[-] 14th_cylon@lemmy.zip 11 points 5 days ago

no one benefits from it (at least from the part regarding cookies, which i am honestly not sure is part of gdpr)

before that, you just dealt with cookies with whatever cookie extension you preferred. now you would have to trust the site to store your rejection in a cookie, because guess what happens next time you visit the site when it doesn't find any cookie.

and these fucking dialogs are hard to get rid off even with ublock origin.

so it is definitely the case of road to hell paved with good intentions.

[-] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 5 days ago

You're wrong but do try out Ghostery, a FF plugin that rids you of the popups.

[-] Dalvoron@lemmy.zip 28 points 5 days ago

Excellent points, but the cookie banners were a response to the ePrivacy Directive, not GDPR. In fact the banners predate GDPR by about a decade! I know this because I decided to make my own banner that was slightly less annoying about five years before GDPR was a thing.

Funnily enough most of your points are still correct precisely because, as you say, "most people wholly equate GDPR with the cookie banners".

[-] victorz@lemmy.world 6 points 4 days ago

I don't remember seeing any banners before GDPR?

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Candice_the_elephant@lemmy.world 153 points 5 days ago

I've used uBlock Origin for years, but the dev doesn't accept donations because he doesn't want an obligation to support the software ongoing. This means I cannot support him even though it would come with no expectations, just thanks.

So thank you for your hard work Raymond Hill/gorhill You're amazing, doing your part to make the world a better place.

[-] Goodlucksil@lemmy.dbzer0.com 61 points 5 days ago

gorhill says in its GitHub page that you can donate to the maintainers of the filter lists.

[-] Buffy@libretechni.ca 5 points 4 days ago

Thanks for this info, I'll check it out. I use their filters with adguard home so it would be great to contribute to the ongoing cause.

[-] AnarchistArtificer@slrpnk.net 39 points 5 days ago

Makes such a useful piece of software, and is also wise enough to set boundaries to protect himself from the toxic pressure of open source development.

What a G.

[-] piskertariot@lemmy.world 169 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

uBlock Origin can also get rid of Shorts in Youtube, as well as the hover-play functionaliy, and annotations on videos.

Just paste this into your uBlock Origin settings/myFilters:

! Kill YT Shorts
youtube.com##ytd-reel-shelf-renderer
youtube.com##.html5-endscreen-content
youtube.com##.html5-endscreen
youtube.com##.ytp-ce-element
youtube.com###video-preview-container
annotations_module.js$script,domain=youtube.com
/endscreen.js$script,domain=www.youtube.com****
[-] tophneal@sh.itjust.works 17 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

Does that kill just shorts or everything you mentioned in your comment?

[-] piskertariot@lemmy.world 12 points 5 days ago

Everything in the comment. They're all pretty well described if you wanted to pick-and-choose.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] JayGray91@piefed.social 13 points 5 days ago

I thought hover play functionality can be turned off in youtube settings?

But as I was typing this, I realised it's useful for non logged in youtube, I assume.

[-] djdarren@piefed.social 2 points 3 days ago

Aso, YT has a tendency to reset settings like that whenever you log in.

[-] JayGray91@piefed.social 1 points 2 days ago

That's true too.

[-] lapislazuli@sopuli.xyz 10 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

I've used uBlock to get rid of everything: the homepage (leaving only the search bar; so no stupid video suggestions), the upcoming videos and the comment section. I go on Youtube to watch the videos I know I want to watch, not find new videos. I know this sounds a bit radical, but it works well for me.

load more comments (11 replies)
[-] PostaL@lemmy.world 51 points 5 days ago
[-] PostaL@lemmy.world 25 points 5 days ago

And their tip didn't work to remove the cookie banner on their site

[-] lemmydividebyzero@reddthat.com 72 points 5 days ago

I did not know that I already had the tool in my hands.

uBlock Origin is the best ad blocker imaginable.

But it can do something I always wanted: Get rid of cookie popups (but without acception them automatically).


Visiting a new website and being able to read the content directly feels so weird, although it should be normal.

I hope, EU legislation will force websites to accept a global "Auto-decline"/"Minimum-possible" configurable in the web browser, in which case no banner can be shown. IMO, that's how it should have always been.

[-] x00z@lemmy.world 55 points 5 days ago

I hope, EU legislation will force websites to accept a global “Auto-decline”/“Minimum-possible” configurable in the web browser, in which case no banner can be shown. IMO, that’s how it should have always been.

The banner is a stupid solution. Tracking and ad profiles should be completely banned instead.

[-] blind3rdeye@aussie.zone 5 points 5 days ago

Yeah. The idea that tracking should require explicit consent sounds pretty good at first, but we now the result is that users are constantly nagged and harassed and annoyed until they finally "consent" - at which point everything becomes silky smooth.

So yeah, I agree that this kind of thing should be simply banned, to remove any inconvenience or confusion from the whole thing.

[-] paf@jlai.lu 21 points 5 days ago

There is also "consent o matic", banner does appear but go away in less than a second and auto decline as possible. Does not work on 100% of website but still does a good job.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 6 points 5 days ago

you can use it to bypass facebooks login popup(without logging in)

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] faerbit@sh.itjust.works 32 points 5 days ago

Why does this page have a cookie banner and an annoying modal to sign up to some stupid mailing list?

[-] FosterMolasses@leminal.space 1 points 3 days ago

What's funny is I didn't even know any of this because I already have PopUpOff lol

[-] nasi_goreng@lemmy.zip 8 points 5 days ago

That's Substack platform fault.

[-] warm@kbin.earth 18 points 5 days ago

An article about annoying pop-ups immediately prompts you with a pop-up. Get the fuck outta here.

[-] Goodlucksil@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 5 days ago

On the flip side, it's a good way to test if it works.

[-] marius@feddit.org 16 points 5 days ago

It's nice, but sometimes it breaks websites. Some sites don't work if you don't click on the banner first. So if you encounter a website that seems frozen, try disabing uBlock for a second

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] cheesybuddha@lemmy.world 10 points 5 days ago

What's a cookie banner?

I must have Element Zapped it the first time I saw one and never seen one since

[-] Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 5 days ago

Usually anything related to GDPR.
I believe California has a similar law framework.

Essentially websites are obligated to ask for consent of storing cookies.
Usually they can be denied and you won't have a personalized experience (e.g. dark mode wont be persistent between page visits) but it should not prevent you from viewing.
It's just companies will pressure you into accepting them by utilizing dark patterns and try to coax you into accepting the most privacy invasive options (and selling your data to >500 advertisers)

[-] audaxdreik@pawb.social 6 points 5 days ago

My favorite new dark pattern is the one where the website forces you to either accept the cookies or pay/subscribe.

There seems to be some argument around whether this is technically legal or not, it seems to worm its way around the written guidelines just enough but certainly goes against the spirit of it.

The fact that "Reject All" is an option, has always been an option, gives the game away entirely.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] fletcher_bosom@lemmy.world 8 points 5 days ago

Website operators don't want to have to display cookie banners and users don't want to see them. So what are we doing?

[-] orclev@lemmy.world 34 points 5 days ago

Website operators don't want to have to display cookie banners

This is false. If they didn't want to display the banners they could literally remove them, there's absolutely nothing requiring them as long as they don't track your behavior. They refuse to give up tracking so they add the banners to annoy visitors and hopefully trick some of them into accidentally opting into tracking. It's an abusive manipulation of a loophole in the GDPR. If they really hated the banners they could just not track you but they rather make it your problem.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] warm@kbin.earth 19 points 5 days ago

Websites did it to themselves by abusing cookies to track users. Instead of consent popups though, the EU should have just blanket banned tracking in general.

[-] Maestro@fedia.io 11 points 5 days ago

If website operators didn't want to ask for consent, they should stop trying to profit for your behavioral data. But they want to sell your data and have de it from you. That's the only thing not allowed. There are plenty of sites that use cookies and don't need to show a consent banner.

[-] fonix232@fedia.io 7 points 5 days ago

I'd honestly be so much happier if it was a permission request similar to e.g. accessing location or microphone access, for a number of reasons:

  • would be easier to manage as it would end up being a single interface handled by the browser instead of a per-website implementation
  • no differently worded, intentionally vague bullshit options that are designed to entrap the user
  • no struggle finding the enable/disable option after clicking either accept or decline
  • the ability to automatically provide a default answer that gets around to the fucking popup blocking 2/3 of the page
[-] orclev@lemmy.world 7 points 5 days ago

Browsers already have the do not track header, it should just honor that. If you have that set it should be an automatic opt out no banner necessary.

[-] lemmydividebyzero@reddthat.com 5 points 5 days ago

Unfortunately, it was deprecated in 2025: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_Not_Track

I once saw a German website (idealo.de) doing exactly what you said. If the header was set, they skipped the banner and interpreted it as "minimum cookies".

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 02 Jan 2026
672 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

78393 readers
3608 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS