Show HN: A Chrome extension that will auto-reject non-essential cookies

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Existing solutions and comparisons

  • Many commenters note similar tools already exist: Consent-O-Matic (cross‑browser), uBlock Origin with “Cookie notices/Annoyances” lists, “I Still Don’t Care About Cookies”, Hush (Safari), Cookie AutoDelete, Brave’s “Forgetful Browsing”.
  • The main differentiation: this extension explicitly rejects non‑essential cookies, whereas some others mainly hide banners or auto‑accept then rely on deletion.
  • Some report Consent‑O‑Matic breaking sites or missing banners; others say it works well when combined with uBlock.
  • Several users would like a Firefox version and good iOS support; iOS is seen as the hardest platform for customization.

Law, consent, and effectiveness

  • Discussion centers on EU vs US: in the EU, omission of consent is described as equivalent to rejection and GDPR requires explicit consent; in the US, hiding a banner doesn’t have to mean “no”.
  • Some argue that hiding popups with blockers is legally equivalent to rejection in theory, but often not implemented correctly; others respond that GDPR needs affirmative consent, so simply hiding isn’t enough.
  • There is debate on whether clicking “reject” matters:
    • One side: websites can ignore it, so only browser‑level protections truly help.
    • Other side: many organizations, especially in regulated contexts, do respect consent signals due to real enforcement risk, so automated rejection has value.
  • DNT (Do Not Track) is seen as a failed approach: global, non‑binding, sometimes used for fingerprinting. GPC (Global Privacy Control) and CCPA are mentioned as more enforceable successors.
  • Broader critiques: cookie laws are called both essential regulation and also “government overreach” that produced dark‑pattern banners instead of real privacy.

UX strategies and trade‑offs

  • Some want automatic rejection everywhere; others prefer auto‑accept + rapid deletion, containers, private mode, or full tracking protection.
  • Concern that rejecting all non‑essential cookies can break embedded content (YouTube, social widgets).
  • Many complain about dark patterns: confusing button labels, “necessary” categories abused, and tedious per‑site flows; there’s interest in a unified, browser‑level consent UI.

Security and extension trust

  • Significant worry about granting an extension “run on all sites” access; users note that popular extensions can be bought out and turned malicious.
  • Open source helps auditing, but people question who will actually review each new version.
  • Some criticize AI/vibe‑coded extensions specifically as less trustworthy, even if the author says substantial refactoring was manual.