amanneedsamaid

Turn on "Easylist Cookies" in uBlock. Also, I feel like a broken record, but why wouldn't you just use an extension like this?

Also, if uBlock's list is missing a cookie banner, it takes two clicks to remove it permanently with the element zapper.

There is no evidence in front my eyes?

I don't see anything in that thread about consent banners, only that privacy badger tries to identify trackers not on its blocklist, a feature I don't want. I also don't understand why blocking consent to receive cookies is at all useful when you can simply block the cookie after consent.

On the off chance you're talking about blocking cookie consent banners (i.e. the popups on websites that ask your consent to send certain cookies), uBlock does that.

I'm sure your PiHole and USG almost fully cover any downsides to your below average choice in browser extension.

something works well ≠ whole thing good

Well both projects are open source, so your reasoning for trusting privacy badger more doesn't really make any sense.

The code is auditable, and uBlock is the most popular and developed open source ad-blocker. What organizations happen to support / recommend them does not matter.

NoScript is great for blocking Javascript on websites, it even comes pre-installed on Tor Browser. Highly recommend either NoScript or GNU LibreJS (which blocks all Javascript it deems "non-trivial" or unfree) for Javascript blocking.

For your use case, I would just uninstall Privacy Badger and use uBlock. You sound like you don't value your convenience super highly (because you use noscript :)), so I would take a look at the advanced user settings in uBlock. It will show every domain attempting to be loaded on a website, and you can pick and choose which you want to allow / block globally or allow / block per-site. You can also block large media elements, remote fonts, among some other things I can't remember off top.

Brave and Firefox both do that. I dont know about Chromium based browsers in this regard, but Firefox's total cookie protection already isolates cookies per-site.

Both browsers' adblockers will block domains ID'd as trackers, so there are no cookies to delete from any domain I would want to.

The more I think about it, why do you need that feature? Firefox and uBlock block tracking domains (and therefore cookies), and uBlock can be configured to block any domain you want.

So if your use case is: "I need any site I visit that is not in a tracker list to have all of its cookies denied, but I don't want to block cookies through my browser or block the entire domain."

Then Privacy Badger does have one feature uBlock does not, and its that one. However, because its not recommendable to use two ad blockers at the same time (i.e. Privacy Badger + uBlock) (see my other comment), Privacy Badger is still obsolete.

If you need that edge case functionality, download Cookie AutoDelete

Hell no 💀💀💀💀

About having multiple solutions installed to same problem being "absolutely fine", yeah no. (albeit 5 year old tweet, but I would assume it holds true).

Also, adblock extensions are not an industry, and given the fact they're open sourced, there is no real benefit to "encouraging competition" for such a simple tool.

It is obsolete, just use uBlock Origin instead.

uBlock has as far as I know all the same features (and many more), a better reputation (anecdotally), and is a single, extremely common browser extension (if you care about being fingerprinted through having multiple extensions, that is an advantage).

I don't really care if the EFF endores the tool, as it doesnt have any unique features.

Obsolete imo, there are many other extensions that do the exact same thing. Its not that I dont trust Privacy Badger, I just don't see the point in trusting it when it offers nothing new.

No, it sandboxes Google Play Services just like any other app would be on Android. On stock android, Google Play Services essentially run as root.