Can't see the flag, because the whole page is blocked by some BS (presumably in german). Blocking own content or creating obstacles to see it ... what can be more ridiculous. I just close such web pages and never come back.

Same. I had this idea of making a special pi-hole variation where instead of blocking the domains, it actually redirects me to a page of my own creation that explains that the given domain was blocked by me due to [intrusive popups, hiding the article behind a click so it can trigger some JS, whatever other dark patterns]. It's hard to manually remember all the domains to not bother clicking links to :)

The easiest way to achieve this on a desktop browser (or Firefox for Android) may be to add custom, named filter lists to uBlock Origin. The name will show up on the block page ("Found in: $LIST_NAME") It's not network-wide, but at least you can host your lists on the web to keep them up to date across your devices (and to share your efforts with others!).

Ah right, I want something network-wide and not requiring installation of software on any machine, etc. I do appreciate the tip, though! :)

Clicking "Akzeptieren und weiter zu mopo.de" will let you view the page.

I saw a cookies consent popover followed by a “oh no ad block” popover.

I can’t get worked up against them for wanting to get paid, even though I regard adverts as parasites of time, energy, and bandwidth and won’t disable my ad blocker for them — I don’t have solutions, just the aphorism about two wrongs.

It's a GDPR consent banner.

I didn't tolerate it either — I can often figure out which button is "Necessary cookies only", but not in this case.

However, Firefox's reader mode retains the main image: https://www.mopo.de/image/32016852/2x1/940/470/afcc092634a9d...

Good old GDPR improving our web experience!

The first notification informes you about the cookies the website is using. You need to agree to the use of the cookies to continue. This is mandatory by european law.

But I agree with you that the placement and the fact that the banner blocks the whole website is unconvenient.

The second notification tells you to turn your ad-blocker of or to watch a video instead.

> You need to agree to the use of the cookies to continue. This is mandatory by european law.

No, it is not mandatory by European law. The myth persists.

The site can use essential cookies or no cookies just fine, with no banner required at all. Nothing.

If they decide to use non-essential cookies, for example privacy-intrusion tracking cookies to follow your activity around the web for advertising, then they need to notify you of this tracking and obtain consent. You have a right to know, after all, and you might prefer to exercise your rights by declining consent. But nothing requires it to be a large banner, and nothing requires the "reject all" button to be difficult to find.

I know, I should have clarified that. But to be honest, most newspapers use more then the essential tokens.

As I wrote, I find the blocking of the website and the placement of the banner unconvinient. I am also convinced that it should be mandatory to have a "essential cookies only" button.

I just wanted to explain what the banner is for, as the parent comment did not understand the german text.

The law doesn't say that the cookie banner has to cover the entire page. It doesn't say either that the button to reject the cookies must be hidden at the end of the form.

"But I agree with you that the placement and the fact that the banner blocks the whole website is unconvenient."

Not the first time the Swedes have had experience with tall ships causing problems.

Ha, you refer to the Vasa, I guess? ;)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasa_(ship)

> It is just freaky, I don't know if it is good or bad to be associated with such an incident.

I think it's not good because of the potential to become politicly charged. Add some "cyber" and it has NatSec types reeling. There is a scenario in Ghost Fleet[1] where a vessel sailing under a Chinese flag blocks the Panama canal in a theater of war with the West. Not going to issue any spoilers but it's a brilliant (fiction) novel for hypothetical future war scenario's.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_Fleet_(novel)

I believe the US military was worried about a German or Japanese strike on the Panama canal in WW2. And the Suez Canal was literally blocked by scuttling ships when Egypt took control in the Suez crisis.

The Panama Canal has always been much more vulnerable than Suez, as the latter is sea-level for it's entire length and has no locks.

Destroying or blocking as few as three locks could semi-permanently block all traffic in Panama, or worse, drain Gatun.