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

Seems it works well. It's consistently always disgusting trying to read a short post with that notorious nag box on stackoverflow and others

EDIT: Update- Another Fail at https://stackoverflow.com/questions/44507481/powershell-5-1-in-windows-2012-r2

I uninstalled the extension-

I'm such a noob at this.
Used instead uBlockOrigin to CREATE a BLOCK of that stupid nag box. The internet is so full of those lamer interruptions

You guys are champs at contending against those and other nuisances

 

IDCAC has no rule for Stack Overflow (no green check mark on the extension badge), so it can't fail.
If you encounter sites with cookie nags, report them at GitHub.

I don't see a cookie nag there.
Only a "nag" about signing up at the bottom.

uBO can hide that with:

Code:

stackoverflow.com##.js-dismissable-hero.z-nav.b0.r0.l0.ps-fixed.bc-black-100.bt.bs-sm.bg-black-025

 

Was that with the "I still don't care about cookies" extension on Chrome?

Is that with a Chromium browser, or Firefox?
With Firefox and IDCAC I see the same, no cookie nag.
I wonder what's different for EASTER. Perhaps some browser setting that's different to nicolaasjan's and mine?

Regarding IDCAC and the "I still don't care about cookies" fork, I still use the former. I follow Brummelchen's recommendation, "to observe and sit back and wait while using that extension. Rules on AMO [addons.mozilla.org] are strikt, no obfuscation, no tracking and more."
In some time, I may switch to the "I still don't care about cookies" addon for Firefox, but not yet.

 

With Firefox, but with Chromium there is no nag either.

True, but you can dig through the entire source code on GitHub. Or unpack and inspect the .xpi.

 

@nicolaasjan,
I thought Brummelchen meant to observe and sit back using the original IDCAC extension, now that it is owned by Avast, to see if any news would surface regarding unwanted changes. But perhaps I misunderstood.

 

Oh, then I misunderstood.

In the meantime, the maintainer of the fork also watches the changes in the original closely.
And merges updates from IDCAC in ISDCAC.

 

ofc ublock can do this, on the other hand a ready made extension is reducing the work for this dramatically and can do maybe more - by recognizing consent dialogs by design and not by content. and it can do more with javascript, "i dont care about cookies" is more than just a list you can add to ublock.
currently i use "consent blocker" but i am trialing now also this one
https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/addon/consent-o-matic/

about "sit back and wait". my first view to the fork discovered me that it is a fork from the chrome store. and the chrome store rules are not that strict like mozillas on AMO. as noticed there where opend issues and maybe they fixed it. fact is that that a signed version for firefox, but not public on AMO, may match their criteria, but do not have to. this little but important difference is all for signing. and honestly, how many of you are tech-savvy enough to understand the complete code of this extension? i wont.

overtaken by Avast means overtaken by Norton Lifelock. this ofc has a bad taste nowadays. thats why i understand certain feelings about the fork and why people trust a fork more that its original, although there is no evidence right now.

 

Thank you for your reply, Brummelchen.

The fork for Firefox is on AMO now.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/istilldontcareaboutcookies/
I hope and I suppose the forked Firefox addon is based on the original Firefox addon?

 

Since Sep. 27.
Version history.

 

Yes, I know it was since some time, I didn't look up since when exactly.
Why I said "The fork for Firefox is on AMO now", was because Brummelchen said "but not public on AMO", I wasn't sure whether Brummelchen knew it is on AMO now.

That sure looks great.

 

thank you for the update. time will show how users will move.
currently: fork 4,114 vs original 303.534

and we will see when mozilla is checking it deeper* to become a recommended extension like the original

* "Recommended" vs

good luck

 

I know.
Only 112 out of 28,899 Firefox extensions are so called 'Recommended Extensions'.
'I don't care about cookies' is one of those, 'I still don't care about cookies' is not.
As Mozilla says, "The tightly-curated nature of Recommended extensions means we may only feature up to a few hundred, or less, at a time."

 

JFYI that the original IDCAC extension has been updated to v3.4.4

 

And the fork has been updated as well (not yet for Chromium; waiting for review)

 

Warning:
Imposter repackaged and sells the add-on on Chrome store.

It's only 1$.

 

something about kiko (author from "i dont care about cookies" original) less users know (me included)
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/no-thanks/
no trial, pay or leave it.

so this also can happen on AMO. in general not bad, but for chrome store: never!

 

I have installed the extension and it did fix the problem on HLN for me, by simply disabling this extension. Also cool that it gives an indicator, but what does the green checkmark mean? I suppose the red stop sign means that the extension is not active on the website.

And I have noticed that on many sites I can't disable this extension because this option isn't visible on the extension's right click menu. Is this some type of bug? For example, I'm not getting to see it on WSF, this forum. So it seems buggy, at least on Vivaldi.

 

The green checkmark means the extension is active on that website, that site is in the filterlist.

On those websites the extension is not active, those websites are not in the filterlist.

 

Version 1.0.8 of ISDCAC now available in the Chrome Web Store.

 

OK cool, so when it's not active you can't disable it? But on the old IDCAC you could always disable it, I think this should be changed. Also, when I see the green checkmark on cnbc.com, I can't disable it either, something is not right, see link. Or does it only work on toplevel domain? And I assume that the stop button means that the cookie dialog is blocked.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/11/01/sto...ed-peloton-carvana-molson-coors-and-more.html

 

BTW, I have just checked it once again on cnbc.com and there's definitely something wrong. When I load this site, at first I will get to see the disable option in the right click menu, but when I load it a second time, I do not. In fact, this also happens on WSF, so it's a bug for sure. I think it's best if it's implemented as the old IDCAC. The menu should always stay visible.

https://www.cnbc.com/finance/

 

I am very sorry, I was wrong!
With the original IDCAC addon on Firefox, if websites are not in the IDCAC extension's filterlist, the extension can still be disabled on those sites.

With the original IDCAC addon on Firefox, it can be disabled on that site.
If not with the fork, ISDCAC, that's not OK and must be a bug, I would say.

 

Using the fork IDSCAC, it can be disabled as well there.

 

Ah, thanks, nicolaasjan. If so, then I don't see what's the issue in Rasheed187's situation. Could it be a difference in the addon for Firefox and the extension for the browser that Rasheed187 uses?

 

You can always come back shamelessly