I’ve never seen the !0 and !1, it is dumb and indicates either young or terrible devs.

Boolean(window.chrome) is the best, !!window.chrome is good, no need to test if it’s equal to true if you make it a boolean beforehand.

Is this left-wing?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilisation_in_Sweden

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Institute_for_Racial_Biology

How do you think that would work? Like the site with the affiliate link should drop a third party cookie for gumroad? That’s a pretty big requirement.

But did you try in this case? Because it doesn’t seems to have a sanitizer handling gumroad, in fact the sanitizer list is quite limited.

All the solution you proposed have big tradeoffs. Most would require to run some code on the site where the URL is, which is often not an option. And they would not work if the link is shared between people. For a lot of cases the solution they used seems to be the best one.

The URL tracking filter list is nice but it doesn’t seems to include anything related to gumroad domain or parameters.

https://filters.adtidy.org/extension/ublock/filters/17.txt

You need to add it yourself.

I don’t understand. Cookies and request method are two different things. You can set cookies on GET.

This is about removing tracking arguments that identify users, this is not the case here.

The example in your link even show it’s keeping campaign tracking arguments. So I’m pretty sure it would keep the one we are talking about here.

Use removeparam.

The URL tracking protection filter list uses this and is a nice list to enable.

An uBlock Origin custom filtrer should do.

Why would anyone use a browser that requires you to login, especially after that: https://kibty.town/blog/arc/

Just Hi-rez being Hi-rez. They have a long history of shutting down games. I’m never getting any game from them anymore.

I don’t think it’s the same source code (uBOL vs uBO). And it’s definitely not the same logic, that’s the whole point, blocking with MV3 must be done in a declarative way.

They do kill uBlock Origin. The Lite version is a different extension.

Yes but that’s not the same. Because of Chrome limitation it can’t update it’s blocklist directly. You have to update the whole extension to update the blocklist and that goes through Google validation in the Chrome store. It adds delay and Google could even refuse some updates. The blocklist is also shorter because not all filter rules are supported.

• Privacy Badger stopped using heuristic 4 years ago because it could be used to fingerprint you.

• Cookie autodelete simply does not work with Firefox’s Total Cookie Protection, which is enabled by default.

As of Firefox 86, strict mode is not supported at this time due to missing APIs to handle the Total Cookie Protection. Also as of Firefox 103, standard mode has also enabled Total Cookie Protection. Use ‘strict’ mode if using pre-86, use standard mode for versions 86-102, or from version 103+ use the custom configuration and set cookie to ‘cross site tracking cookies’ option (not the cross-site cookies).

https://addons.mozilla.org/fr/firefox/addon/cookie-autodelete/

You don’t even need an extension to automatically delete cookies, just enable privacy.sanitize.sanitizeOnShutdown and privacy.clearOnShutdown_v2.cookiesAndStorage. To add an exception: Ctrl+I>Permissions>Cookies>Allow.

Check Arkenfox’s extension page and the section about sanitizing on shutdown.

Wow, you are really confused. The argument about the functionality being already implemented by Firefox was about https everywhere. This has nothing to do with adblocking and it does break some sites (the one still not using https) but you can still access them with a click.

Cookie autodelete is useless if you use Firefox on strict mode.

I don’t understand your edit, how is more things doing the same thing better? It adds complexity, attack surface while taking resources.

Privacy Badger is useless with uBlock Origin and cookie autodelete is useless with Firefox in strict mode.