[Tzk]

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.

[throw101010]

> 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]

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.

[FergusArgyll]

I've enjoyed https://github.com/cavi-au/Consent-O-Matic/ it fills out cookie banner automatically according to your preferences.

Obviously alongside ublock origin for the rest of the minefields

[nicbou]

On iOS, Adguard does a decent job. It's the only way I would ever use the internet.

[mozarella]

I also supplement it with the "Web Archives" extension to access paywalled and login-walled articles.

[f1shy]

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]

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.

[zelphirkalt]

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.

[kamma4434]

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]

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

[k__]

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

[Yokohiii]

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.

[MetaWhirledPeas]

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.

[chrisjj]

> 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.

[Tzk]

> 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.

[rglullis]

If people are willing to consume content but not willing to pay for it, then you have a very strong indicator it has no value at all and therefore no actual need to be produced in the first place.

[lelanthran]

> Without ad revenue, many sites would have no content at all.

I'm fine with that. An ad-laden site with ads I cannot block won't have me as a visitor anyway, so I'm not really going to notice if they are gone.

[dxdm]

Ads do not absolutely have to be delivered via pop ups or modals.

[appreciatorBus]

If the content is so worthless that people will not voluntarily pay for it, then this outcome would be no great tragedy.

[plagiarist]

I would care if they were at all capable of respecting people who allow ads.

[RobotToaster]

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.

[amanaplanacanal]

The content was better when it was posted by hobbyists for free than it is now posted by people trying to make money off of it. So... fuck 'em.

[sznio]

I'd be fine with a whole web free of revenue.

There would be much less stuff around, but what would stay is the things people created for fun, not for profit. SEO spam, AI slop - these are all solved by removing money from the web.

[delis-thumbs-7e]

> Ads are content too, you know?

I agree. Why there isn’t this technology implemented on film streaming, movie theaters, even games? I think ebooks should stop you reading every five minutes just to show ads. I’m sure it could be implemented in to PDF pretty easily.

Internet and all medias point is to make money for jesus christ, what are we, a charity? Why don’t book publishers put ads into printed books, they are goving away content for free!