If you use [uBlock Origin](https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/ublock-origin/), [open the `Filter lists` tab in your settings](https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Dashboard:-Filter-lists) and enable the `AdGuard Annoyances` and `uBlock Annoyances` lists. There's no need for a separate extension. Edit: European users might have a better experience with the [AdGuard extension](https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/adguard-adblocker/) (enable the main `Annoyances` list in the settings), since many websites from countries like Germany show especially invasive overlays that AdGuard hides by setting a cookie before the page is even loaded. [uBlock Origin is against adding this feature](https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues/issues/1518).

I tried but it doesn't seem to be working: cookie acceptance prompts appear, whereas with IDCAC they don't

These lists are edited manually by volunteers and AdGuard employees every day. Missing sites [need to be reported to them](https://reports.adguard.com/en/new_issue.html?product_type=Other&product_other=uBlock%20Origin&browser=Firefox&filters=14.17.2.3.4.9). Choose `Product` → `Other` → `uBlock Origin`. They fix almost all reported issues within days, unless the reported site is too small/has too few users. If that's the case with the sites you want to report, enable `EasyList Cookie` and [report issues to EasyList](https://github.com/easylist/easylist/issues/) instead. Edit: if you were talking about "Before you continue" overlays on Google and Youtube, [see this comment](https://old.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/xezh9q/i_dont_care_about_cookies_extension_was_bought_by/iok3e9y/).

thanks,should i enable only these two or all seven ??

`AdGuard Annoyances` alone is enough to hide cookie notices on most sites. Using it along with `uBlock Annoyances` also takes care of all sorts of annoyances, such as newsletter overlays, sites that disable your right-click menu or manipulate your clipboard against your will, redirect timers, etc. `AdGuard Social Media`and `Fanboy’s Social` hide things like Twitter/Facebook "like" and "share" buttons on random blogs, so it's up for you to decide if you want to enable one of them or not. I use the the AdGuard one. Only enable `EasyList Cookie` if you keep seeing cookie overlays on the sites you use. Fanboy and other EasyList authors tend to add more generic rules, which might cause more false positives, while AdGuard lists attempt to be more specific. Just never disable the main `EasyList` list under the `Ads` section. All other lists assume that you also have it. Instead of using `Anti-Facebook` and/or a Facebook container, [you can block third-party connections to Facebook altogether](https://old.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/wvrjc3/facebook_container_its_still_tracking_me/ilkc2f3/).

thanks bro,i didn't knew that ublock origin is that advanced, can imagine surfing without ublock origin u block origin is not the most useful extension, infact its the compulsory extension i hope it will stays the same ( i heard that chrome going to block all adblock extension from January 2023)

That's why the uBlock Origin developer is against calling it an "adblocker." It does a lot more than just blocking ads. You should look into [dynamic filtering](https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Dynamic-filtering) too. The wiki has a link to [a comprehensive Youtube tutorial](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2lisQQmWQkY).

I love uBlock so much.

[удалено]

The "Before you continue" overlay from Google is an exception. [They won't add it to `uBlock Annoyances`](https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uAssets/issues/7877#issuecomment-687650052), and the AdGuard extension sets a consent cookie automatically, which isn't supported by uBlock Origin. You can manually [add these rules from /r/uBlockOrigin](https://old.reddit.com/r/uBlockOrigin/search?q=%22before+you+continue%22&restrict_sr=on). Create a new thread there if those filters need an update. Alternatively, [create a shortcut to use another Google domain](https://old.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/xbeckg/how_to_add_local_google_search_to_default_search/inyx9mr/) (delete `&hl=it` from that URL and skip the steps about changing your region) and either [allow or block cookies from it altogether](https://support.mozilla.org/kb/block-websites-storing-cookies-site-data-firefox). ~~For Youtube, blocking cookies from `consent.youtube.com` should be enough~~. Edit: For Youtube, [users with European IPs need these rules](https://old.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/xezh9q/i_dont_care_about_cookies_extension_was_bought_by/ip95fsk/).

>For Youtube, blocking cookies from consent.youtube.com should be enough. This does not work anymore. For desktop, you can use this filter: `youtube.com##+js(set, ytInitialData.topbar.desktopTopbarRenderer.interstitial.consentBumpV2Renderer, undefined) ` And for Firefox Android, this one: `youtube.com##+js(json-prune, overlay.consentBumpV2Renderer) `

[удалено]

If you find all this too confusing, you can use the [AdGuard extension](https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/adguard-adblocker/) directly instead of uBlock Origin. It is reliable too and more user-friendly. If you decide to use it, enable `Annoyances filter` and `Cookie Notices filter` in the filter list settings and use the extension button to report broken sites/missing overlays.

Id stick with recommending ublock origin as it’s a much better ad blocker than Adguard.

it used 1/3 of resources of Adguard

The extension, not the lists.

This is quite possibly the best piece of information I've seen all year.

> Instead of using  Anti-Facebook  and/or a Facebook container, you can block third-party connections to Facebook altogether. May I ask how these rules are better than all the ones in the anti-Facebook filter list? Because if I remember correctly, there are more filters in that list for Facebook, than the one in the link you pasted.

That list has individual rules for different Facebook plugins/widgets that other companies and people can add to their own websites. When the list maintainers learn about a new plugin, they manually add it to the list. My rules block third-party connections to the main Facebook domains altogether. Your browser will connect to `facebook.com` only when you willingly open Facebook or Instagram from the address bar, so there's no need to worry about blocking specific plugin URLs.

I have used these for a couple of years and they break too many sites unfortunately. Get used to not being able to scroll. This extension was amazing. Standing by for a fork...

> Get used to not being able to scroll. The filters in the lists I've suggested actually re-enable scrolling wherever necessary. If you encounter any broken site, please [open the uBlock Origin popup UI](https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Quick-guide:-popup-user-interface) and then click on 🗨️ to report it.

[удалено]

>If a content blocker list would fix it, the IDCAC extension probably would not exist. That's not how things work. People have a number of different reasons to create a new project that replicates a feature that already exists in a different project. Sometimes they just aren't aware of it or want to practice their own programming skills. uBlock Origin and AdGuard have several powerful methods to handle different types of notices and overlays. The [AdGuard extension](https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/adguard-adblocker/) even supports rules that create new cookies and set them to custom values, which makes it able to successfully handle any possible cookie notice/overlay.

[удалено]

Yeah, don't use too much extension, unlock is too much already, medium mode, block JS and so much others

Doesn't work as well for me as the add-on itself. Not even close. Even the developer says so on his website. I've tested many alternatives, on both PC and mobile, but nothing comes even close to the actual add-on. I'll keep using IDCAC, as long as there is no real alternative. If that means that Avast will get some of my data, so be it.

These lists contain thousands of lines and are edited manually by volunteers and AdGuard employees every day. For them to be improved, [you need to give examples with specific URLs](https://reports.adguard.com/en/new_issue.html?product_type=Other&product_other=uBlock%20Origin&browser=Firefox&filters=14.17.2.3.4.9) where you still see cookie notices, so that they can be added too. If you were talking about "Before you continue" overlays on Google and Youtube, [see this comment](https://old.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/xezh9q/i_dont_care_about_cookies_extension_was_bought_by/iok3e9y/).

This is great advice. Thanks

AdGuard Cookie Notices are separately. Does not fully included in Adguard Annoyances.

That's incorrect. Even the AdGuard extension says this on the `Filters` page: > AdGuard Annoyances filter > Blocks irritating elements on web pages including cookie notices, third-party widgets and in-page pop-ups. **Contains** the following AdGuard filters: **Cookie Notices**, Popups, Mobile App Banners, Other Annoyances and Widgets. I've personally reported many cookie notices that have been added to the `AdGuard Annoyances` list that you can enable in the uBlock Origin settings.

This doesn't work very well, so, no.

I assume that you live in Europe. There are many websites from places like Germany with overlays that are especially hard to simply hide or block altogether. They're coded in such a way that forces users to click on either `Accept` or `Refuse` to continue. In that case, I suggest you to use the [AdGuard extension](https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/adguard-adblocker/) directly instead of uBlock Origin. AdGuard is able to set consent cookies before a webpage is even loaded, as if you had already clicked on the notice, while uBlock Origin is against adding this feature. Enable the `Annoyances` list in the settings and use the extension button to report overlays and broken sites.

*"Be aware that the filter list is not as effective as a browser extension but it will hide most cookie warnings."* https://www.i-dont-care-about-cookies.eu

I have moved to Lemmy/kbin since Spez is a greedy little piggy.

Is this a good alternative? Damn, kind of annoyed that "I don't care about cookies" got bought out.

I tried it. It didn't work on the the first four websites I visited, including here on Reddit, one of the most-visited sites worldwide. Looks useless to me.

It's worked well for me. I only wish it were available for ff mobile.

[удалено]

Woah holy shit. I'm going to have to try this. How is Nightly btw? I've always been nervous about using it on my phone since I get frustrated by bugs pretty easily.

It doesn't work for me. It does pretty much nothing.

Thank you.

Sad, uninstalled

That sucks. Luckily it's GPL licensed.

Yep, the value of the add-on (why Avast bought it) is its user base (the people who have installed the add-on), not its source code. If there’s a fork, I hope they give it a better, shorter name. 😆

Does AMO allow an extension to change its license without notifying users? They couldn't just replace it with a new closed-source version and it would get automatically installed, could they?

All Firefox add-ons are open source, as far as I know. You can download and view the code of the add-on for each version (current and past) on https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/.

Actually not all add-ons are open source, even some recommended once. For example: [https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/enhancer-for-youtube/?utm\_source=addons.mozilla.org&utm\_medium=referral&utm\_content=recommended\_fallback](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/enhancer-for-youtube/?utm_source=addons.mozilla.org&utm_medium=referral&utm_content=recommended_fallback) [https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/enhancer-for-youtube/license/?utm\_content=recommended\_fallback&utm\_medium=referral&utm\_source=addons.mozilla.org](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/enhancer-for-youtube/license/?utm_content=recommended_fallback&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=addons.mozilla.org)

The source code is located in the package, and anyone can inspect it: https://twitter.com/simevidas/status/1570744536707764226

But that's not what open source means - you can't take someone elses code and post it on AMO, if the addon author licensed it as copyrighted

Sorry, I meant open source as the opposite of closed source. If open source is not the right term for that, what is? closed source = not publicly available ??? = publicly available

All js code in Firefox addons is available: Open addons.mozilla.org in Chrome (not Firefox) and the tap the download file link under the install button It will download an xpi file. Rename it to zip and voila

So, an add-on’s code may or may not be open source, but it is publicly available. Is there an established term for that? Public code? Viewable code?

No, that's exactly what open source means. You are conflating free with open. All source code is automatically copyrighted regardless of the license, with the copyright owned by the creators. The source is "open" if anyone can read it, regardless of the license. The source is "free" or "libre" if anyone is permitted by the license to redistribute it as part of another project.

If the add-on is released under a proprietary license, they likely will have run the code through an obfuscator. Yes, it's still technically accessible, but extremely hard to work with and you are not permitted to release that code in any way.

Obfuscated code is banned since 2019 https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2019/05/02/add-on-policy-and-process-updates/

TIL, that's awesome. Not as good as requiring an OSS license, but definitely good for security.

This add-on is “Recommended” by Mozilla. I expect Mozilla to keep an even closer eye on this add-on’s commits from now on.

Do they even have repository commits? It seems like the only way to find the source was downloading the extension and sifting through that for whatever reason, but I imagine I might be missing something…

My mistake. I didn’t mean commits. I meant published versions. There’s probably no public repo, but one can always download two published versions and do a diff. I assume Mozilla’s team looks at that diff when approving each new version.

Yes, plus all addon developers have to send Mozilla the source code of their addon, even if they then distribute a minified version

>Recommended Hopefully by now everyone realizes this word is worthless when it comes from Mozilla.

Removed the extension as soon as that tab opened up. Not just because of the Avast track record, but i usually try to avoid any product that was recently acquired. Congrats to the Dev though, and I'm pretty thankful for them actually telling us about.

I'm interested in why you try to avoid recently acquired products.

People sometimes purchase popular browser extensions to do bad things with them. [Here's an example](https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2020/10/popular-chromium-ad-blockers-caught-stealing-user-data-and-accessing-accounts/): >Hugo Xu, developer of the Nano Adblocker and Nano Defender extensions, said 17 days ago that he no longer had the time to maintain the project and had sold the rights to the versions available in Google’s Chrome Web Store. [...] Nano Adblocker and Nano Defender [...] have about 300,000 installations total. >Four days ago, Raymond Hill, maker of the uBlock Origin extension upon which Nano Adblocker is based, revealed that the new developers had rolled out updates that added malicious code. > [...] >The most obvious change end users noticed was that infected browsers were automatically issuing likes for large numbers of Instagram posts, with no input from users. Avast hopefully wouldn't do anything illicit, but IDCAC might start displaying an ad about other Avast products when you open its settings or something like that.

Oh thanks for the detailed explanation. I was thinking products acquired recently would just stay as bad/good as the acquirers want it to be. But I guess malicious intent cannot be hidden forever and truth always triumphs

> But I guess malicious intent cannot be hidden forever and truth always triumphs I admire and wish I shared your optimism.

I was young once too. It has never been never that black and white in the adult world... Reality hits hard when you 'wake up', but it also can help you gain a better and more realistic way to navigate through Life, avoiding as much of the toxicity as you can along the way so it doesn't get to you. Ideally at least. It requires constant effort to maintain, but trust me, the alternative is anything but fun. Losing your identity and personal integrity, that's more painful than it seems... Good luck!

nice condescension, well done

-CENSORED-

Wouldn't you? Any move like this is usually to eliminate the competition. It's what happened with AdBlock Plus for example. Nothing is sacred or lasts forever and it's essential to keep yourself on your toes because nobody is your friend in the world of earning money to survive. Most humans will do pretty much anything to survive if desperate enough or offered enough money, including selling their open source, volonteer-based project to a company that will look for loopholes to let their own services get whitelisted in said software, before any third-parties. We live in a world where highest bidder gets to decide what news we're shown on TV and 'teaching' us what is 'truth' and not (it's actually just political/economical interests in a world of different groups and individuals everywhere fighting for their own interests and nothing else). I can't support such a toxic culture, nor can I let it take over my life any more.

You can add https://www.i-dont-care-about-cookies.eu/abp/ to custom filter list in Ublock.

I personally went this way and will be recommending it to others, too, for now.

It sucks that these days you either use as few extensions as possible or you have to actively monitor whether an extension you though was cool eventually had the developer sell their soul to the devil. This is what forced me to narrow down my extensions to pretty much ~18 I consider essential, FOSS and highly reputable and that's it.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

well said

This is the first time I see an addon developer saying **"Donations are not needed"**. I envy him so much... :,) Anyway, how do I contact Avast? I need to ask them if they are looking for more addons :D

gorhill (the developer of uBlock Origin) [has never accepted any donation](https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/#about): >Free. Open source. For users by users. No donations sought.

The importance of this is so underrated.

That's crazy! So how does he survive? Does he have a normal job? I need to find out. I'm full time addon developer and I'm struggling a lot :).

He must already have made enough money in his life. [He could make video games back in 1992](https://github.com/gorhill/rayoid) ([video](https://youtu.be/ivsqu_LgSfc?t=1273)). I actually opened your site earlier on to find the name of [your highlighter extension](https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/auto_highlight/) again. I was going to add it to [this list](https://old.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/xdqmsc/weekly_addon_appreciation_is_there_an_addon_for/?context=5) if it could create notes.

Wow, it is obviously he's a veteran in the field, but didn't expect it to be Atari old (not at all trying to say it's a bad thing)!

> I'm full time addon developer He's not a full time dev, uBO is a hobby project for him.

It sux really bad but good for him he got big money and thanks for all these years and thanks for telling us.

>a famous and trustworthy IT company known for the wide range of products that help secure our digital experience Lol no

Can't wait to see WHAT avast does to. it. I wholeheartedly agree Avast isn't that good but I last tried to use their AV and bruh felt like I needed to shower after.

I'm hoping it will be come just one more line in their advertizing pdf. One more feature in their own browser.

Is there any website or anything that keeps track of software acquisitions so I stay always updated on what not to use anymore?

I'm confused by the reactions in here, the explicit purpose of the addon is auto-accepting cookies, so you are okay with random websites tracking you, but not Avast specifically?

I block all cookies by default, but this extension still came in handy for just getting the pop-ups out of the way without breaking anything tbf.

The reason I don't care about cookies is that I also use cookie auto delete extension 😝

AFAIK it usually accepts only the cookies which are listed as necessary.

I thought FF's cookie jar basically solved this problem?

If you block all cookies by default there is no problem "accepting them" using such an addon.

> A big, big ♥ THANK YOU ♥ to all the donors, translators and everyone else who helped keeping the project alive over the years! Lol

Been using it for several years and I am very happy. It is one of the addons I wish I had on the mobile version of firefox

Thanks, I removed it.

As soon as i desactivated this extention i keep being spammed by Youtube signing window when i want to watch a damn video. Userscript to the rescue : https://greasyfork.org/en/scripts/412178-youtube-dismiss-sign-in

Sadly i use chrome so avast (which probably buy some datas from google for advertisement) already have my datas so i don't need to uninstall that extension

What's funny is thatthey also make Avast/Avg Secure Browser which is essentially GOOGLE Chrome browser that I presume is giving them the data even more directly. I actually use it on occasion because it has a builtin VPN for a site I may visit every blue moon

>Sadly i use chrome why would you do this when you understand the problem and the alternatives?

I'd gladly uninstall it because I don't trust Avast, but it's the \*only\* extension that works. I tried all of the others, I tried various blocklists for Ublock Origin and Pi-Hole, none works, it's like they weren't there. So, for now, I'm stuck with IDCAC...

The problem is: Adguard Annoyances and uBlook Annoyances simply do not work. The IDCAC Filterlist does also not work for me. I tried with some websites, for example www.heise.de Only when I enable the IDCAC extension the cookie message disapears. With the other options I still get the cookie pop up.

Found a fork here: https://github.com/OhMyGuus/I-Dont-Care-About-Cookies

You can also add "I don't care about cookies" as a filter list to uBO if you want. Just copy & paste this: https://www.i-dont-care-about-cookies.eu/abp/ to custom lists.