Avast aquired "i-dont-care-about-cookies"

Adguard Extension with its Annoyance filter should be equal to the IDCAC extension since Adguard extension has the ability to accept cookies on sites where the site doesn't work without accepting.

 

Good to know.

 

Wait a minute, I didn't know about this extension, I always assumed you had to pay for all of their products. You are talking about this one right, see link. And perhaps Gorhill can figure out a way to implement such a feature in uBlock?

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/adguard-adblocker/bgnkhhnnamicmpeenaelnjfhikgbkllg?hl=en

 

This is Adguard Annoyances filter for uBO: https://filters.adtidy.org/extension/ublock/filters/14.txt

 

Yes, I believe I'm already using it. Actually, I use the AdGuard Tracking filter because certain filters break too much stuff, so I then end up disabling them.

 

BTW, I have noticed that on certain sites, embedded content from Twitter and Instagram is blocked with the IDCAC filter list enabled in uBlock. With the standalone extension you could simply disable it for specific sites via the extensions button, not sure if this is possible with Ublock? I think that's why I probably also stopped using the IDCAC filter list.

 

Firefox gets option to block cookie banners by default (in German)
Work in progress.

 

it's not.

 

Yes, I read about it, hopefully other browsers will soon also implement this. I believe the upcoming DuckDuck Go desktop browser will also offer this. But it's seriously weird how long it's taking to launch this browser on both Windows and macOS.

No of course it's not, because now that I think of it, this is a feature that would be nice to have, why not give the ability to disable certain filter lists per site, good idea or not?

 

it sounds like a good idea but i think it would be very hard to implement it.

 

keeping off such dialogs is easy, but at least Mozilla wants not to change only the visibility, they need to handle the action behind otherwise they break websites, eg focus.de and its videos. no cookie consent clicked off = no videos.

 

I suppose so, because I'm sure Gorhill would have already implemented it. And seems I got lucky, all of a sudden imbedded content from Twitter and Instagram seem to work again, even with the IDCAC filter enabled in uBlock.

 

good for you.

 

I spoke too soon, it still blocks Twitter and Instagram, does anyone know how to fix it? If I disable the IDCAC filter in uBlock, the embedded content does work. With the standalone IDCAC extension I could simply disable it on this site. Here are a couple of examples where Twitter is blocked, it's a Dutch newspaper:

https://www.ad.nl/buitenland/biden-...log-is-de-keuze-van-slechts-een-man~ab281164/
https://www.ad.nl/buitenland/zware-...gt-hem-aan-voor-belastingontduiking~a3f5ce07/

 

are you dead sure that that filter is the culprit there?

 

Twitter content was blocked for me on that site for me as well (Firefox with uBO), with or without the IDCAC filter enabled (I'm in the USA). I don't use any social media blocklist except for Facebook, and no ad-blocking DNS for this browser (just Quad9).

 

Thanks for checking, and it's very confusing because now all of a sudden it works again even with the IDCAC filter enabled. I don't know if the EasyList Cookie filter also plays a role, but speaking about this filter, shouldn't it do the same job as IDCAC? But I must say that I hope I'm not hacked or anything, because I now see that Yahoo Mail acts weirdly, I can't scroll anymore when uBlock is enabled, I wonder what's up with this.

 

I'm sorry, but now I'm convinced that the IDCAC filter must somehow play a role, because all of a sudden Twitter is blocked again on two other articles. As soon as I disable the IDCAC filter and reload the page, it works again. If I enable it, it's blocked. So there is something seriously weird going on. This is another site, but it's related to the Dutch newspaper AD:

https://www.gelderlander.nl/show/om...uidatie-opmerking-van-johan-derksen~a30c53f7/
https://www.gelderlander.nl/nederla...p-debuut-na-goals-tegen-jong-belgie~a8e3ee65/

 

Gelderlander.nl is problematic (videos not playing).
See this recent issue on the fork of IDCAC.

 

Indeed, using the alternative, cookies are blocked and videos are playing just fine. This is the reason I do not block ads generally and I also disable tracking prevention and blocking "misleading" ads in edge.

 

the alternative?

 

OK, so I wasn't crazy after all. Very weird that it will block imbedded content on certain sites. Will the IDCAC fork also be released on the Chrome webstore, and is it even legal?

I haven't got a clue what you mean, why shouldn't you block ads and tracking? This is about blocking the annoying cookie warnings with the IDCAC filter, which sometimes may cause problems. I would still like to use the IDCAC extension, but I really don't trust Avast anymore, since they were caught spying on users with their free AV.

 

It is there already.
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/i-still-dont-care-about-c/edibdbjcniadpccecjdfdjjppcpchdlm
(It is still is on v1.0.0 there, which contains a bug, so just wait for a while)

And it is legal.

But beware, there is also a fake one!
See: https://github.com/OhMyGuus/I-Dont-Care-About-Cookies/discussions/49

 

Cool, but only 47 users? I do like the name though. And I guess anyone can make such an extension, so that's why it's probably legal. But then I wonder why Avast didn't make its own extension instead of buying IDCAC. BTW, Brave will now also block cookie banners and I believe it's a bit more advanced. Let's hope that Vivaldi will soon also implement such a thing.

https://brave.com/privacy-updates/21-blocking-cookie-notices/

 

I think that Avast wants to impress (potential) business clients. After all, IDAC is an excellent addon / extension to automatically accept cookies from those clients. And many of us will stay using IDAC only because we are not prepared to accept some annoyances. Avast just uses our laziness.