Hacker News Reader

Comment by nvr219 | Hacker News Reader

I use ublock to hide those overlays

Or, on a purely ad hoc basis, McDiarmid's "Kill Sticky Headers" (https://alisdair.mcdiarmid.org/kill-sticky-headers).

Wow, this makes Medium almost readable! Thanks!

Ugh, Medium is the only site I've had to consistently break out the "Block Element" button with. I don't even mind ads and I'm happy to leave them on sites that I want to support, but Medium is an ugly beast with all of the headers and footers.

I still frequent it for work, there's lots of great stories, but it's almost insufferable.

> Medium is an ugly beast with all of the headers and footers.

They don't mind that you feel that way; they still want to make it official.

At this point, while I carry a Medium account, I refuse to log into it out of principle.

Slightly better implementation:

    javascript:(function(){(function(){var%20i,elements=document.querySelectorAll('body%20*');for(i=0;i<elements.length;i++){var%20p=getComputedStyle(elements[i]).position;if(p==='fixed'||p==='sticky'||p==='-webkit-sticky'){elements[i].parentNode.removeChild(elements[i]);}}})()})()

It's basically the same but it also catches `sticky` and `-webkit-sticky`, which some sites use instead of `fixed`.

Thank you! Indeed McDiarmid's implementation is so nearly reliable that I find myself confused and stymied when it doesn't work. I'll substitute yours and hopefully avoid confusion and stymied-ness.

I use the extension "Hide Fixed Elements" which is similar.

Just remember, you're accepting the agreement if you blocked the overlay because that's the default if you ignored it.

You mean in the overlays that are required by law to have the default option be to opt out of tracking?

Actually, they're supposed to be opt-in. "Silence, pre-ticked boxes or inactivity should not therefore constitute consent." [0]. I worked extensively on one of the big ad-network's GDPR compliance pub & advertiser tools and we took this seriously. If you blocked the message & you were detected to be in the EEA, that was "no consent" for data use. That said, I know many of the other players in the ecosystem actively overlooked or did not abide by this policy.

[0]https://www.gdpreu.org/the-regulation/key-concepts/consent/

Shoot, you are correct, and I misspoke. I meant to imply that the default must be assumed to be rejecting all tracking, and that all tracking applied must be explicitly accepted.

What's a shame is that most companies hide behind the claim that if users block IP tracking, since they "can't" get geo without IP, you're opt-in by default. They don't make the best effort attempt to, using the data they have, determine opt-in/out default behavior. The regulators seem OK with that argument. So your point sort of stands (and I wish it didn't)

No, GDPR requires explicit consent for data collection. Blocking the overlay crap is withholding consent.

But is that the case in practice? It's my experience that there are countless media outlets showing me popups that have the tracking options activated by default.

Most companies hide behind the claim that if users block IP tracking, since they "can't" get geo without IP, it's opt-out. Oath in particular will use any excuse to opt-in by default, but so will most news sites. Regulators seem OK with that.

GDPR should be opt-in only, not sure if it currently is or isn't, but in my opinion it should be...

It is, and few care. "Silence, pre-ticked boxes or inactivity should not therefore constitute consent." [0] Problem is that the authorities are too underfunded and understaffed to actually handle this, and the wording in the regulation is vague enough that big company lawyers have hemmed them in. I've seen it happen.

[0] https://www.gdpreu.org/the-regulation/key-concepts/consent/

Reply on news.ycombinator.com