8 ms·

No sane person would ever come to the conclusion that it’s a great idea to make the user click away numerous popups, (cookie) banners and modals just to actuall

by Tzk 9mo ago

No sane person would ever come to the conclusion that it’s a great idea to make the user click away numerous popups, (cookie) banners and modals just to actually see the content. And yet here we are. Today most commercial or news sites use those plus dark patterns to make it go away as hard as possible. I usually just close the tab and never come back. My choice is “no” not “ask again later”… Same for those annoying chatbot buttons which just take away screen space.

f1shy 9mo ago
The web experience, specially in the phone, reminds me of the 90, if not worst, because some of those cookies dialogs have “processing” time (just a 5 sec. Wait) I have counted 20 clicks until I get a clean view of actual content with all possible distractions closed. And never EVER less than 5. The thing is so awful, that I started trusting the sheitty Gemini extract, because at least pops up at once. If I open a site to check, I have to be prepared to about 10 annoying and slow, microscopic buttons to close all the sheit. Then you realize the site is LLM slope anyway… or just marketing BS… next site… rinse and repeat. Specially EU and specially Germanay, the web is dead. (Was anytime alive?!)
- elcapitan 9mo ago
  That was the big aha moment last year with Noscript for me. For a long time I avoided it because of the occasional case where I have to whitelist a site, which costs a bit of time. Now every site has so much forced garbage interaction that with Noscript on average I have way fewer clicks.
  - LoganDark 9mo ago
    I've started to encounter news outlets / etc that use JavaScript to load most of the article. So if you don't have it enabled you get like one or two paragraphs and that's it. Usually I didn't care about the article that much anyway, but it's still annoying.
  - Tanoc 9mo ago
    I've been using NoScript since 2016, and the number of things that get loaded in via Javascript has sextupled since then. This isn't an exaggeration, some websites like Wal-Mart's went from five extra domains to thirty. Going to Fossil's website to look at a watch for a Christmas gift this year, the domain whitelist panel for NoScript was so long I actually had to scroll down because there were just that many. And there's no silver bullet to fix it, because there's three parts of it. The first is that these Javascript modules are literally drag and drop, so you can add new functionality in minutes. The second is that most of this stuff is being delivered offsite from a CDN anyways, so why bother doing anything like a static page? And the third is that it forces the users to enable Javascript so that trackers, fingerprinters, third party cookie loggers, and all sorts of other things get their filthy little digits into your window. Javascript devs aren't going to change, because they don't want things to be harder and slower (putting side the mess that is the Javascript ecosystem). The hosts don't want things to revert, because then that's more money paid for bandwidth when that cost can instead be dropped in someone else's lap. And the little bastards doing the tracking definitely aren't going to change, because it's a source of money for doing nothing other than being a voyeur. I still block Javascript everywhere just so that things will actually work and won't crash my browser by eating an entire gigabyte of RAM just loading fonts from some third party website. I still recommend other people to as well. Not because I think it will actually protect them, but instead to show them just how inefficient and predatory modern website design is. It spooks people when they see two dozen URLs that aren't the website they're currently on.
- zelphirkalt 9mo ago
  In theory with GDPR conforming websites it should be 1 click and that is "reject all" or "accept only essential" cookies and a website would truly only ever set essential cookies, and not something else that is non-essential to reading the content. In practice lots of websites are developed by people going to huge lengths to make it more cumbersome and sneak in shit that's not essential, and the websites do not actually follow the law. Mind, this is talking about the not rolled back version of GDPR, that I read they are planning to roll back somewhat and thereby destroy the good it was. In Germany the web is dead, because of laws, that require most websites to have the author's friggin address on the website. Like, who wants every idiot on the web to know one's address? Might as well not have a blog or website. There are websites which don't require it and you can sort of gray zone get around it, but that's already too much effort that inhibits a freely developing web. Instead people flock to abusive social media presences. Germany has managed to basically kill its blogging and web culture through this idiocy and thereby got rid of a lot of educational potential and skilled workforce.
  - deleted 9mo ago
    [deleted]
  - f1shy 9mo ago
    > In practice lots of websites are developed by people going to huge lengths to make it more cumbersome and sneak in shit that's not essential I feel it was from the begging a way of screw people so people say “fuck me as you like, but let me surf the web!” And they are getting away with it, sadly. > In Germany the web is dead, because of laws, that require most websites to have the author's friggin address on the website. Amen! That is was one of the dumbest things. I would be ok to have it registered somehow. But just for everyone to know my private address because I want to share some stupid thing online?! Pretty strange, when we talk about privacy! Another one was making the owner of a wifi spot 100% responsible for crimes committed by that connection. That made free wifi absolutely disappear. That leaves us with sites than only try to make money. Which is ok, I guess. But the web could be much richer than just a virtual shop window.
    - PaulHoule 9mo ago
throw101010 9mo ago
> My choice is “no” not “ask again later”… My choice is uBlock Origin and enabling the Cookie Notices filter lists and other Annoyances filter lists (which block the Mobile app banners and such). Works pretty well. Obviously using Firefox, since Chrome doesn't let me filter content my own computer renders locally these days...
- Tzk 9mo ago
  Couldn’t agree more. Also FF user and Ublock Origin works great. On mobile (iOS in my case) it’s not that easy though. I’m using safari with AdGuard which works for some annoyances, but by far not all.
  - plagiarist 9mo ago
    I have been having some success with wipr 2. The developer is respectful of privacy, so the blocking is split into regular content blockers (Apple claims cannot send data) and one extra (could send data). I enabled only the regular content blockers.
  - aucisson_masque 9mo ago
    Ublock light is pretty good on Safari
    - ycombinatrix 9mo ago
      Not compared to the uBlock Origin. You can't even import a filter list. Main reason I use Firefox.
      - XzetaU8 9mo ago
        Something that [1] AdGuard Browser Extension can do, it make you wonder why uBOL can't include such a feature. [1] https://adguard.com/en/blog/adguard-browser-extension-v5-2.html https://adguard.com/en/blog/adguard-browser-extension-v5-2.h...
      - OptionOfT 9mo ago
chrisjj 9mo ago
> No sane person would ever come to the conclusion that it’s a great idea to make the user click away numerous popups, (cookie) banners and modals just to actually see the content. Ads are content too, you know? Without ad revenue, many sites would have no content at all.
- RobotToaster 9mo ago
  I was fine with ads when they were a text AdSense banner. Now a lot of sites have scammy full page js-popups of the kind that were only found on dodgy websites in the 90s.
  - Anthony-G 9mo ago
    As a life-long hater of ads (before the Internet, I would mute the TV during ad breaks), I must agree. Before AdSense, animated GIFs for advertising were obnoxious. When the “Don’t be evil” Google started doing advertising, I was so impressed with them. Even their advertising is tasteful - and relevant! They really seemed to have the Midas touch. But I feel that their choice of advertising revenue as their predominant income stream set them on a trajectory that gradually and inexorably led them further away from their original principles.
- dxdm 9mo ago
  Ads do not absolutely have to be delivered via pop ups or modals.
- Tzk 9mo ago
  > Ads are content too, you know? Yes, and I’m not against ads in general. It’s about the balance of actual content (the user wants to read and cares about) and ads/popups the site owner needs to run the site or generate some kind of income. If the user has to click away numerous things to be able to see any “real” content, then something’s clearly wrong. We’ve gone from showing ads to support the site to generating just enough content for the site to make the user visit and show them ads. Sad times.
  - 9mo ago
Yokohiii 9mo ago
It's so lazy and dumb. The wildest thing about it, is that they could mostly delay required cookies to the second contact, first interaction or at the time it's actually required. Raw first contact engagement can be tracked cookieless.
k__ 9mo ago
Brave made this more bearable for me, by blocking cookie banners by default.
MetaWhirledPeas 9mo ago
Ad delivery services don't care about the user experience because it's not their site, so anything goes. The host justifies their decision because hey, look, money. That money is quantifiable while user experience is less so.
kamma4434 9mo ago
Speaking for myself only, but I find it easier to click ‘back’ than waste time on my ‘consent’. Lately, I’m asking some llm to fetch it and summarize, so the one sentence content that was expanded into a full page article goes back to its original form.
- cheschire 9mo ago
  I’ve noticed some LLMs lately aren’t pulling the page and try guessing the content from URL SEO.

by Tzk 9mo ago

f1shy 9mo ago

The web experience, specially in the phone, reminds me of the 90, if not worst, because some of those cookies dialogs have “processing” time (just a 5 sec. Wait) I have counted 20 clicks until I get a clean view of actual content with all possible distractions closed. And never EVER less than 5. The thing is so awful, that I started trusting the sheitty Gemini extract, because at least pops up at once. If I open a site to check, I have to be prepared to about 10 annoying and slow, microscopic buttons to close all the sheit. Then you realize the site is LLM slope anyway… or just marketing BS… next site… rinse and repeat. Specially EU and specially Germanay, the web is dead. (Was anytime alive?!)

elcapitan 9mo ago
That was the big aha moment last year with Noscript for me. For a long time I avoided it because of the occasional case where I have to whitelist a site, which costs a bit of time. Now every site has so much forced garbage interaction that with Noscript on average I have way fewer clicks.
- LoganDark 9mo ago
  I've started to encounter news outlets / etc that use JavaScript to load most of the article. So if you don't have it enabled you get like one or two paragraphs and that's it. Usually I didn't care about the article that much anyway, but it's still annoying.
- Tanoc 9mo ago
  I've been using NoScript since 2016, and the number of things that get loaded in via Javascript has sextupled since then. This isn't an exaggeration, some websites like Wal-Mart's went from five extra domains to thirty. Going to Fossil's website to look at a watch for a Christmas gift this year, the domain whitelist panel for NoScript was so long I actually had to scroll down because there were just that many. And there's no silver bullet to fix it, because there's three parts of it. The first is that these Javascript modules are literally drag and drop, so you can add new functionality in minutes. The second is that most of this stuff is being delivered offsite from a CDN anyways, so why bother doing anything like a static page? And the third is that it forces the users to enable Javascript so that trackers, fingerprinters, third party cookie loggers, and all sorts of other things get their filthy little digits into your window. Javascript devs aren't going to change, because they don't want things to be harder and slower (putting side the mess that is the Javascript ecosystem). The hosts don't want things to revert, because then that's more money paid for bandwidth when that cost can instead be dropped in someone else's lap. And the little bastards doing the tracking definitely aren't going to change, because it's a source of money for doing nothing other than being a voyeur. I still block Javascript everywhere just so that things will actually work and won't crash my browser by eating an entire gigabyte of RAM just loading fonts from some third party website. I still recommend other people to as well. Not because I think it will actually protect them, but instead to show them just how inefficient and predatory modern website design is. It spooks people when they see two dozen URLs that aren't the website they're currently on.
zelphirkalt 9mo ago
In theory with GDPR conforming websites it should be 1 click and that is "reject all" or "accept only essential" cookies and a website would truly only ever set essential cookies, and not something else that is non-essential to reading the content. In practice lots of websites are developed by people going to huge lengths to make it more cumbersome and sneak in shit that's not essential, and the websites do not actually follow the law. Mind, this is talking about the not rolled back version of GDPR, that I read they are planning to roll back somewhat and thereby destroy the good it was. In Germany the web is dead, because of laws, that require most websites to have the author's friggin address on the website. Like, who wants every idiot on the web to know one's address? Might as well not have a blog or website. There are websites which don't require it and you can sort of gray zone get around it, but that's already too much effort that inhibits a freely developing web. Instead people flock to abusive social media presences. Germany has managed to basically kill its blogging and web culture through this idiocy and thereby got rid of a lot of educational potential and skilled workforce.
- deleted 9mo ago
  [deleted]
- f1shy 9mo ago
  > In practice lots of websites are developed by people going to huge lengths to make it more cumbersome and sneak in shit that's not essential I feel it was from the begging a way of screw people so people say “fuck me as you like, but let me surf the web!” And they are getting away with it, sadly. > In Germany the web is dead, because of laws, that require most websites to have the author's friggin address on the website. Amen! That is was one of the dumbest things. I would be ok to have it registered somehow. But just for everyone to know my private address because I want to share some stupid thing online?! Pretty strange, when we talk about privacy! Another one was making the owner of a wifi spot 100% responsible for crimes committed by that connection. That made free wifi absolutely disappear. That leaves us with sites than only try to make money. Which is ok, I guess. But the web could be much richer than just a virtual shop window.
  - PaulHoule 9mo ago

throw101010 9mo ago

> My choice is “no” not “ask again later”… My choice is uBlock Origin and enabling the Cookie Notices filter lists and other Annoyances filter lists (which block the Mobile app banners and such). Works pretty well. Obviously using Firefox, since Chrome doesn't let me filter content my own computer renders locally these days...

Tzk 9mo ago
Couldn’t agree more. Also FF user and Ublock Origin works great. On mobile (iOS in my case) it’s not that easy though. I’m using safari with AdGuard which works for some annoyances, but by far not all.
- plagiarist 9mo ago
  I have been having some success with wipr 2. The developer is respectful of privacy, so the blocking is split into regular content blockers (Apple claims cannot send data) and one extra (could send data). I enabled only the regular content blockers.
- aucisson_masque 9mo ago
  Ublock light is pretty good on Safari
  - ycombinatrix 9mo ago
    Not compared to the uBlock Origin. You can't even import a filter list. Main reason I use Firefox.
    - XzetaU8 9mo ago
      Something that [1] AdGuard Browser Extension can do, it make you wonder why uBOL can't include such a feature. [1] https://adguard.com/en/blog/adguard-browser-extension-v5-2.html https://adguard.com/en/blog/adguard-browser-extension-v5-2.h...
    - OptionOfT 9mo ago

chrisjj 9mo ago

> No sane person would ever come to the conclusion that it’s a great idea to make the user click away numerous popups, (cookie) banners and modals just to actually see the content. Ads are content too, you know? Without ad revenue, many sites would have no content at all.

RobotToaster 9mo ago
I was fine with ads when they were a text AdSense banner. Now a lot of sites have scammy full page js-popups of the kind that were only found on dodgy websites in the 90s.
- Anthony-G 9mo ago
  As a life-long hater of ads (before the Internet, I would mute the TV during ad breaks), I must agree. Before AdSense, animated GIFs for advertising were obnoxious. When the “Don’t be evil” Google started doing advertising, I was so impressed with them. Even their advertising is tasteful - and relevant! They really seemed to have the Midas touch. But I feel that their choice of advertising revenue as their predominant income stream set them on a trajectory that gradually and inexorably led them further away from their original principles.
dxdm 9mo ago
Ads do not absolutely have to be delivered via pop ups or modals.
Tzk 9mo ago
> Ads are content too, you know? Yes, and I’m not against ads in general. It’s about the balance of actual content (the user wants to read and cares about) and ads/popups the site owner needs to run the site or generate some kind of income. If the user has to click away numerous things to be able to see any “real” content, then something’s clearly wrong. We’ve gone from showing ads to support the site to generating just enough content for the site to make the user visit and show them ads. Sad times.
- 9mo ago

Yokohiii 9mo ago

It's so lazy and dumb. The wildest thing about it, is that they could mostly delay required cookies to the second contact, first interaction or at the time it's actually required. Raw first contact engagement can be tracked cookieless.

k__ 9mo ago

Brave made this more bearable for me, by blocking cookie banners by default.

MetaWhirledPeas 9mo ago

Ad delivery services don't care about the user experience because it's not their site, so anything goes. The host justifies their decision because hey, look, money. That money is quantifiable while user experience is less so.

kamma4434 9mo ago

Speaking for myself only, but I find it easier to click ‘back’ than waste time on my ‘consent’. Lately, I’m asking some llm to fetch it and summarize, so the one sentence content that was expanded into a full page article goes back to its original form.

cheschire 9mo ago
I’ve noticed some LLMs lately aren’t pulling the page and try guessing the content from URL SEO.