In the "filter lists" tab, I would recommended enabling the "Fanboy's Annoyance" list. It's a huge list that focuses on removing various annoying, recurring website components, and it's created by the maintainer of Easylist (uBlock Origin's primary filter list).
The downside, of course, is that this may in theory break some additional % of websites, but this has not been an issue in my experience.
That's the best technological solution but there are inherent conflicts of interest since Firefox depends on Google for money.
Firefox has its own built in privacy mechanism that is enabled by default and don't prevent me to use uBlock together with it. I prefer that approach.
Mozilla's "commitment" to privacy is all talk and no action.
https://twitter.com/cookieshame
One interesting thing is that loads of sites use OneTrust to implement illegal banners. However OneTrust has a compliant banner on their own site.
So they can do it, but most sites deliberately configure it illegally.
The only people who think it's particularly hard or onerous are the people referenced by "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it."
Did the law in anyway make my life better?
It's not the law's fault that companies would rather implement such detrimental UX than either give up the teat of personal data or give people their rights.
It is, however, the fault of regulators for not stamping down on such behaviour when it is against both the letter and spirit of the law.
And, honestly, I consider the fact that so many websites are forced to admit that they are trying to take and sell my data to be positive.
As Reagan said the most dangerous words in the English language “I’m from the government and I’m here to help”.
After previous cookie banners, they really should've known better. (Or, let's be real, absolutely did know, but left it in for corporate interests anyway.)
in the abstract sense of course everyone has to know all the laws of society - the law in its majestic equality forbids unsafe construction practices from builders and greengrocers alike - but that's not a particularly interesting or insightful observation.
In fact, a confusing banner that makes you play a minigame to get the respect for your personal information that you have a legal right to (in the EU) is explicitly disallowed.
And if you don't want any banners, then don't collect any information you don't have to. If it's actually technically needed, you don't need consent. For example, Wikipedia has lots of cookies for things like UI elements and they don't need a banner.
It is. So are the ones defaulting to "yes". And the ones where there is just a popup telling the user to install some blocker in their browser without giving them a choice (like https://npr.org ). Or telling them to take a subscription if they don't want to be tracked.
All these things are illegal but unfortunately they are not enforced.
There are some big ones here: https://www.tessian.com/blog/biggest-gdpr-fines-2020. Ironically, that site also has a cookie banner that attempts to trick you into thinking that the highlighted button will save the default preferences shown (it won't, it'll turn them all in, then save that). This is illegal too.
They should have added a provision that if the user has Do Not Track turned on, the site may not present a cookie barrier and may not serve any cookies except essential ones. I know many browsers have removed DNT but they sure would bring it back in a heartbeat if it actually did anything.
This is what you get when corporate lobbying gets as big as it is in Brussels :(
Brussels might have a corporate lobby problem, but they did create the regulations in the first place, so they're already ahead of a lot of national governments (which run the regulators).
I still don't understand why Firefox, champion of privacy, doesn't make a uBlock native.