There is an Aggressive setting for Brave Shields, which you can set either per-site in the Shields menu from the URL bar, or globally in brave://settings/shields - that should take care of SERP ads and other first-party placements.
As I see it, Brave is the only Chromium-based browser with a competitive Mv2-deprecation-resistant adblocker. If adblocking is important to you - and it is, to many people - then Brave literally is the only one worth considering. Not to mention it is open source, unlike most of the others.
(I work on Brave's adblocker, and FWIW the folks who work for Brave are very open about their affiliation when commenting about it online)
Those are automated unit and integration tests with controlled filter data as inputs. That's the only practically useful kind of test for an adblocker.
FWIW, there is an alternative to OCA film that's slightly easier to apply in small quantities without specialized hardware - it's called LOCA glue (i.e. Liquid OCA).
I'd definitely recommend that if you're just assembling less than, say, 10 screens.
I've been using Llama models to identify cookie notices on websites, for the purpose of adding filter rules to block them in EasyList Cookie. Otherwise, this is normally done by, essentially, manual volunteer reporting.
Most cookie notices turn out to be pretty similar, HTML/CSS-wise, and then you can grab their `innerText` and filter out false positives with a small LLM. I've found the 3B models have decent performance on this task, given enough prompt engineering. They do fall apart slightly around edge cases like less common languages or combined cookie notice + age restriction banners. 7B has a negligible false-positive rate without much extra cost. Either way these things are really fast and it's amazing to see reports streaming in during a crawl with no human effort required.
I think I'd rather see cookie notices handled by a browser API with a common UI, where the default is always "No." Provide that common UI in a popover accessed in the address bar, or a side pane in the browser itself.
If a user logs in or does something requiring cookies that would otherwise prevent normal functionality, prompt them with a Permissions box if they haven't already accepted it in the usual (optional) UI.
Cookies for normal functionality don't require consent anyway.
But yes, I think just about everybody would like the UX you described. But the entities that track you don't want to make it that easy. You probably know of the do-not-track header too.
There isn't any way EU didn't knew this was possible and is a better choice. There already was DNT header that they can regulate. It also knew the harm to ad industry.
There isn't any rule that requires websites to use a cookie banner. Your required to obtain explicit consent before reading/setting any cookies that aren't strictly necessary. The web came up with the cookie banner.
Google could've implemented a consent API in Chrome, but they didn't. Guess why.
Bear in mind, those arcane cookie forms are probably not compliant with EU laws. If there's not a "reject" button next to the "accept" button, the form is almost definitely not to spec.
The legislation has been watered down by lobbying of the trillion-dollar tracking industry.
The industry knows ~nobody wants to be tracked, so they don't want to let tracking preferences to be easy to express. They want cookie notices to be annoying to make people associate privacy with a bureaucratic nonsense, and stop demanding to have privacy.
It even got decent implementation in Internet Explorer, but Google has been deliberately sending a junk P3P header to bypass it.
It has been tried again with a very simple DNT spec. Support for it (that barely existed anyway) collapsed after Microsoft decided to make Do-Not-Track on by default in Edge.
This is so cool thanks for sharing. I can imagine it’s not technically possible (yet?) but it would be cool if this could simply be run as a browser extension rather than running a docker container
I did actually make a rough proof-of-concept of this! One of my long-term visions is to have it running natively in-browser, and able to automatically fix site issues caused by adblocking whenever they happen.
There are a couple of WebGPU LLM platforms available that form the building blocks to accomplish this right from the browser, especially since the models are so small.
It should be possible using native messaging [1] which can call out to an external binary. The 1password extensions use that to communicate with the password manager binary.
Ha, I'm not sure the EU is prepared to handle the deluge of petitions that would ensue.
On a more serious note, this must be the first time we can quantitatively measure the impact of cookie consent legislation across the web, so maybe there's something to be explored there.
why don't you spam the companies who want your data instead? The sites can simply stop gathering your data, then they will not require to ask for consent ...
It’s the same comments on HN as always. They think EU setting up rules is somehow worse than companies breaking them. We see how the US is turning out without pesky EU restrictions :)
It has higher salaries for privileged people like senior engineers. Try making ends meet in a lower class job.
And you have (almost) free and universal healthcare in Europa, good food available everywhere, drinking water that doesn't poison you, walkable cities, good public transport, somewhat decent police and a functioning legal system. The list goes on. Does this not impact your quality of life? Do you not care about these things?
How can you have a higher quality of life as a society with higher murders, much lower life-expectancy, so many people in jail, in debt, etc.
I think there is real potential here, for smart browsing. Have the llm get the page, replace all the ads with kittens, find non-paywall versions if possible and needed, spoof fingerprint data, detect and highlight AI generated drivel, etc. The site would have no way of knowing that it wasn’t touching eyeballs. We might be able to rake back a bit of the web this way.
You probably wouldn't want to run this in real-time on every site as it'll significantly increase the load on your browser, but as long as it's possible to generate adblock filter rules, the fixes can scale to a pretty large audience.
I was thinking running it in my home lab server as a proxy, but yeah, scaling it to the browser would require some pretty strong hardware. Still, maybe in a couple of years it could be mainstream.
To me this take is like smokers complaining that the evil government is forcing the good tobacco companies to degrade the experience by adding pictures of cancer patients on cigarette packs.
Not sure if much serious research has been put into it. I would be suspicious of it deterring them because a lot of initial smoking happens in social situations where friends pass out individual cigarettes.
By the time someone buys their own pack they are probably hooked.
I suspect the obscene taxes blocking out young folks is one of the most effective strategies
It wouldn't get passed on. Without land value tax, holding real estate is a good enough investment on its own that rent prices can be left artificially inflated. LVT puts pressure on landlords to actually earn back the value of the property to avoid losing money. In practice, that means offering competitive pricing.
> But all landlords would pay the tax, and none of them would want to lower prices below their own costs.
This is true ...
> If it becomes impossible to rent properties profitably, then eventually there would just be fewer rentals available.
But this is a leap that doesn't apply to the Georgist scheme. A key feature of the scheme is that taxes on buildings (possibly among other taxes) are removed in favor of the land value tax. It's true that if the tax on some piece of land increases sufficiently, it will eventually become impossible to profitably charge rents on existing buildings on that land--but improving existing buildings or building some superior building (for example, a new building with more units than a pre-existing building) allows landlords to continue profiting.
If the current landlords don't want to improve buildings there, they can sell the land to someone who will. And it's clear that someone will, because if there's enough demand for the land that the land value tax makes it unprofitable to sit on it without improving it, someone is going to want to do something more with it.
The reason we don't already have a Georgist-style economy is quite obvious, of course: the homo sapiens landlordicus is a very soft, squishy, vulnerable subspecies. If they had incentives to improve their properties and thereby possibly even work as hard as the rest of the human species, they might well go extinct. And no one wants that.
That would require removing the zoning restrictions that prevent the construction of new housing.
But here's the rub: if you remove those restrictions, you don't need to change the taxes. Even with current taxes, people will build more housing units, if they're allowed to and they can make money from it.
