How to deal with Google's and YouTube's aggressive popups (before you continue, sign in) - gHacks Tech News

ADVERTISEMENT

How to deal with Google's and YouTube's aggressive popups (before you continue, sign in)

When you visit Google's main website for the first time, or after clearing cookies, you get a "before you continue" popup. On YouTube, another Google property, you will get a "sign in to YouTube" popup instead.

You need to click on "I agree" on Google's site or "no thanks" on YouTube to get rid of these popups and start using the sites.

block-google before you continue

Problem is: if you clear cookies regularly, you will get these prompts again. It can be quite annoying to deal with these popups each time, e.g. to inform YouTube for the hundredth time that you don't want to sign-in to the site.

block sign in to youtube

You have a handful of options at your disposal to deal with this. One of the easier ones is to use a different search engine and site, without losing access to Google search results or YouTube videos.

You could use Startpage Search, as it is powered by Google's results, and for YouTube, you could use an Invidious mirror site, a desktop program like SMPlayer, or an app like NewPipe.

If you prefer to use the original sites, you could block the popups that Google displays on its main site and on YouTube instead.

For that, you need to use a content blocker such as uBlock Origin; it should work with others as well as the syntax is used by many.

Tip: We reviewed PopUpOff recently, a browser extension for Chrome and other Chromium-based browsers, that deals with the overlay on Google and YouTube sites.

To block YouTube's "sign in to YouTube" popup

block youtube popups ublock

Add the following lines to the My filters tab of the uBlock Origin settings:

www.youtube.com###dialog

www.youtube.com##.opened

The first blocks the actual popup, the second a fullscreen overlay that YouTube displays once you block the popup.

YouTube won't display the popup anymore after you add these options. Note that you need to reload the pages, and that there is a downside to using these as all videos will pause a moment after they have started. You can hit the play button to start playback anew though and watch the videos like you normally do.

Note: if you notice issues with the first, some users reported that search stops working, you may want to try the following lines instead:

youtube.com##ytd-popup-container
youtube.com##ytd-consent-bump-lightbox.style-scope

www.youtube.com##.opened

To block Google's "Before you continue" popup

block google before you continue ublock

To block Google's before you continue popup on the main Google site add the following lines to uBlock Origin's My filter tab:

www.google.com###lb
www.google.com##:root:style(overflow-y: visible !important;)

This one breaks the "more" link on Google's search results page but search functionality itself is working fine.

Now you:  Use a different method? Feel free to share it in the comments below.

Summary
How to deal with Google's and YouTube's aggressive popups (before you continue, sign in)
Article Name
How to deal with Google's and YouTube's aggressive popups (before you continue, sign in)
Description
Find out how to block Google's "before you continue" and YouTube's "sign in to YouTube" popups when you visit the sites.
Author
Publisher
Ghacks Technology News
Logo
Advertisement

Previous Post: «
Next Post:

Comments

  1. Yuliya said on September 27, 2020 at 2:48 pm
    Reply

    “No thanks” and “I agree”. I don’t use any adblocking extension anymore, the domains involved in tracking/ad delivery are filtered system-wide.

    1. Anonymous said on September 28, 2020 at 1:59 am
      Reply

      You need more than domain blocking here, it’s cosmetic filtering.

      1. Yuliya said on September 29, 2020 at 12:13 pm
        Reply

        No, I interact once with these popups, telling them I’m not interested and then I’m done with them. They only show up once, I don’t need an extension for this.

    2. poopooracoocoo said on October 3, 2020 at 7:37 am
      Reply

      isn’t that because you’ve allowed cookies (the default)?

  2. Malte said on September 27, 2020 at 3:00 pm
    Reply

    Do you know a filter rule for golem.de cookie notice? It’s so annoying because you have to wait a few seconds before you can click accept.

    1. DrKnow said on September 27, 2020 at 11:18 pm
      Reply

      Either use the add-on or add the list:
      https://www.i-dont-care-about-cookies.eu/

      If golem.de isn’t blocked by it, message the author and it soon will be.

  3. Benjamin said on September 27, 2020 at 3:10 pm
    Reply

    Because of this criminal behaviour i startet to use the no script extension in Firefox which disables java script and the search results are still there…

    Since i just read this article i will of course configure ublock accordingly.

    Besides all this, i fear that once ublock origins development ceases there will be no equal replacement.

    Also by far less visible are the censoring efforts of the search engines and social networks in that there are simply no relevant search results anymore which are outside the main stream media…

    This is a real dangerous development, unfortunately in accordance and a nod from our governments, and would hit me just as it does all others, if i would not have already a collection of bookmarks from which to start.

    What i also did was to install the firefox extension “context search” from which one can search about 2 dozen search engines at once and can also add own search engines.

    I for one use the one by the french dassault systems “exalead” which behaves in a way as google, altavista did years ago.

    as usual, nothing should be taken for granted.

    1. Anonymous said on September 27, 2020 at 4:35 pm
      Reply

      Google is working on making uBO impossible to use.

      Within 2-3 years it won’t work anymore, although I suspect a small number of power users will always find a solution.

      1. Iron Heart said on September 27, 2020 at 6:11 pm
        Reply

        @Anonymous

        The answer to that are built-in adblockers (like the ones in Bromite or Brave), because those are not extensions and do not fall under extension restrictions. Alternatively, system-wide adblockers like AdGuard.

      2. Klaas Vaak said on September 27, 2020 at 7:40 pm
        Reply

        @Iron Heart: I do not mean to corner you or get your back up, but yesterday I was researching/googling about using Brave and uBO, and came across this comment about Brave: https://davidgerard.co.uk/blockchain/2020/06/06/the-brave-web-browser-is-hijacking-links-and-inserting-affiliate-codes/

        The guy, David Gerrard, seems to know what he is talking about, although you may well have a different view on that. You know that I am just a non-techie user of my Ungoogled Chromium browser, though somewhat worried uBO may not be usable anymore in the future.

      3. Iron Heart said on September 28, 2020 at 10:37 am
        Reply

        @Klaas Vaak

        Unfortunately, this guy, David Gerard, doesn’t have the slightest clue what he is talking about. Let me preface this by saying that I am somewhat tired and annoyed regarding this bit of FUD, because I have explained the real situation a dozens of times (literally) on gHacks already. This is not directed against you, just know that I no longer feel inclined to dive into this topic as deep as I used to, because in general it’s just a nuisance at this point for me.

        Brave has several websites it partners with, those usually populate the sponsored New Tab Pages with their logos, in case you have those turned on. They mention their partners on their website. One of those partners is Binance, but there are others as well.
        Now, in the incident this guy described, when a user typed in binance.us, for example, Brave added a referral link of their own to the URL and offered this as the first suggestion out of a list of suggestions. What was the purpose of the referral? Brave usually identifies itself as Google Chrome before websites for web compatibility reasons (a few websites exclude alternative browsers which do not provide mainstream user agents). Now, in order to distinguish Brave users from Chrome users, you have to find a solution. One solution would be to change the user agent (the string identifying the browser) for the few websites in question OR you can use a referral to the same effect. Since those Brave partners advertised themself on the New Tab Page (in case you have that turned on), they wanted to know how successful their campaign was, so they had an inherent interest to differentiate Brave users from the myriad of users that use the majority browser Google Chrome. This was the sole purpose of the referral – it allowed partner websites to see that you are using Brave and to count you as such. Identifying any single Brave user based on the referral was impossible, because all Brave users were using the same referral link – so this was never a privacy issue. It’s also deactivated by default now, despite other browsers happily doing it as well (it’s not problematic there, either).
        This guy, David Gerard, is literally bashing Brave for letting partner websites count Brave users anonymously. It needs to be noted that other browsers like Vivaldi attach a static referral as well, whenever you search something within the browser, in order to let their search engine partners know how many Vivaldi users used their search engine, allowing Vivaldi Technologies to generate revenue without hurting user privacy (Vivaldi doesn’t collect and sell user data for profit, and neither does Brave Software).

        Last but not least, let me point out some especially egregious remarks this guy made:

        > There is no good reason to use Brave. Use Chromium — the open-source core of Chrome — with the uBlock Origin ad blocker.

        I can name two reasons to use Brave right away: First and foremost, it is the first Chromium-based browser to come with credible fingerprinting protection (Ungoogled Chromium as no noteworthy fingerprinting protections):

        https://brave.com/whats-brave-done-for-my-privacy-lately-episode-4-fingerprinting-defenses-2-0/

        Secondly, by virtue of its built-in adblocker which is not an extension, Brave will be unaffected by Google crippling adblocking extensions. Ungoogled Chromium and several others have no solution for this yet, and as it stands extensions like uBlock origin will no longer work with the same quality as before, with no solution in sight.

        > Or use Firefox with uBlock Origin — ‘cos it blocks more ads than the Chromium framework will let anything block.

        He refers to CNAME uncloaking, which far fewer than 1% of all trackers actually do. Chrome extensions can’t defend you against that because Chrome is lacking a certain API. But as said, Brave Shields are not an extension, and therefore can do something against that – it’s actually on the roadmap for the third quarter of 2020:

        https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/wiki/Roadmap

        Funny that he recommends Firefox, a browser that was actually hijacked by Mozilla (applying the proper definition of “hijacked” here, not the nonsense David Gerard thinks it is) itself with a spyware add-on in the past:

        https://www.zdnet.com/article/firefox-tests-cliqz-engine-which-slurps-user-browsing-data/

        Great alternative, have fun sending your entire browsing history to Cliqz when it happens again @David Gerard.

        > If you’re on Android, use Firefox with uBlock Origin, or the new Firefox Focus browser.

        Firefox on Android literally comes with three trackers built-in (Google Analytics, Leanplum, Adjust), surely it is a fantastic alternative to Brave which is tracker-free.

        > Brave is a browser for suckers who want to keep getting played — so it’s a 100% crypto enterprise.

        Yeah, I totally feel scammed by earning money for browsing the web, while I earn nothing with other browsers. The Brave creators I donate to probably also scammed by me giving them free money. Also, did you notice the complete bias that leaks out here?

        > Brendan Eich has responded to this post by claiming “David lies about us all the time.”

        Eich is not wrong, this article alone is pure FUD mixed with highly biased, malicious lies. I agree with Eich here. The article does not aim to discuss anything matter-of-factly.

        So, there you go. The article deliberately misrepresented a thing Brave did which admittedly created bad optics, but little apart from that, it had no averse effect for the user whatsoever, especially user privacy was never compromised. Personally, I have no problem with Brave letting their partners count Brave users anonymously (Why would I?), I prefer that to them collecting user data and selling it for profit (like certain competitors of theirs do). I have tried to inform you about the real circumstances now, but please, for the love of god, do no longer refer to David Gerard as a source, his articles lack objectivity and he is out to damage the Brave project, caring little whether or not his articles are factually correct.

      4. Klaas Vaak said on September 28, 2020 at 12:41 pm
        Reply

        @Iron Heart: I hope you’ll return to this page read this comment.

        Many thanks for your detailed explanation, and my apologies for exasperating you with my question. Rather than coming out with something like “you see, Brave is a lousy, sneaky browser after all, you don’t know what you are talking about” etc., I preferred to just submit Gerard’s comment to you.

        As you know, I value your assessments, I have always found them well-balanced, and above all cogent. The same can be said, as far as I am concerned, about your comment above.

        To conclude, I accept your explanation and shall not bother you again with this kind of thing. Over time here you have done more than your fair share to explain the ins and outs of Brave. Thanks again for your help and patience.

      5. Iron Heart said on September 28, 2020 at 10:50 pm
        Reply

        @Klaas Vaak

        No problem, I don’t feel annoyed by you, I merely feel annoyed by the topic. This David Gerard guy is very biased in his article, he probably just waits for an opportunity to bash Brave even if there is no substance behind it.

        The question really is: “How is a company that offers their product for free going to fund itself?” For a browser, the obvious answer is search engine royalties, but if your market share is not very big (as is the case with Brave) this certainly isn’t enough. At Brave Software, they decided to let other companies display their logo on the Sponsored New Tab Page, and those companies paying Brave Software of course want to know how successful such a campaign actually was. The need to identify Brave users (collectively, not individually) arises, which is the reason for the referral. Brave Software probably receives a commission per user on their partner websites, based on a referral-driven counter.

        But then, if it is not OK for Brave Software to let partner websites count Brave users visiting them anonymously according to the critics, I wonder how the company is even meant to fund itself? Would violating user privacy really be the better course of action? I do have to wonder what the critics are thinking here, if you take away privacy-respecting means of funding, what are they even supposed to do? I assume the critics just want the project to die, it’s not a coincidence that many critics exploiting the referral situation with FUD were Firefox proponents. I know what these people are all about, and nope, we do not want to use your spyware, dear FF fans…

      6. Klaas Vaak said on September 29, 2020 at 5:00 am
        Reply

        @Iron Heart: many thanks. I have found using uBO to be too restrictive, and even though you can tweak those settings to your heart’s delight, I find it a bit of a pain. So I am giving Brave a try without uBO, though with a few other privacy/security extensions like LocalCDN. I find the Brave surfing experience more pleasurable.

        I am on the latest Brave version, 1.14.84, and even though it says it is Upgraded Chromium to 85.0.4183.121, I doubt that because the feature grouping tabs is not there. Also, the 84 in the Brave version suggests Chromium 84 is still the basis. No criticism, just wondering.

      7. Klaas Vaak said on September 29, 2020 at 8:06 am
        Reply

        @Iron Heart: you don’t need to answer about my last point, I was just musing out loud.

      8. Iron Heart said on September 29, 2020 at 8:15 am
        Reply

        @Klaas Vaak

        I suggest you add uBO regardless, because Brave does not yet have an option to add custom filter lists beyond those which you can access under brave://adblock/ … It’s planned for the future, though. If and when uBO fails to work, you can still remove it anyway.

        Now, as for the version numbers, Brave is most definitely based on Chromium 85, go to brave://settings/help in order to verify this. The “84” in Brave’s own version number is totally unrelated to Chromium (Brave uses its own versioning scheme), it is just a coincidence.

        You can activate Tab Groups by putting these two in the address bar, one after another:

        chrome://flags/#tab-groups

        chrome://flags/#tab-groups-collapse

        Set these two to “Enabled”, close Brave completely and open it again (relaunch), you’ll see the Tab Groups options.

      9. Klaas Vaak said on September 30, 2020 at 11:38 am
        Reply

        @Iron Heart: thanks, that worked for the grouping. As for the Brave version, I had seen it in File > About, but since the grouping was not working I was puzzled. I now remember I had set the flag in Ungoogled Chromium during version 84, so when the upgrade to 85 happened, it worked. Anyway, thanks for your help.

        You mentioned not so long ago you’ll post your privacy/security settings on 1 of the future Ghacks pages. if I see it I will react; if I don’t see it, please let me know with just a short mail at

        klaas [dot] vaak [at] gmx [dot] net

        Cheers for now.

      10. Iron Heart said on September 30, 2020 at 2:51 pm
        Reply

        @Klaas Vaak

        I recommend that you look at your flag changes in chrome://flags in Ungoogled Chromium and just reproduce them in Brave, so that Brave behaves the same / as expected.

        I am looking to update my settings comment, but there hasn’t been an appropriate opportunity so far. I can’t post guides in an off-topic manner here. Seeing how scarcely Brave is reported here, I have no idea when I can update it while staying on-topic at the same time. Perhaps gHacks isn’t the place for it, I could start a GitHub project for this. That being said, I feel that my guide is not extensive enough yet to justify a GitHub project for it. Unbeknownst to many, though, Chromium can be controlled in a very granular manner (similar to about:config) IF one is able and willing to deal with command line switches:

        https://peter.sh/experiments/chromium-command-line-switches/

        Further privacy gains can be achieved utilizing those. However, not all command line switches are related to privacy, I need to distill those which are and experiment with their effects on the browser. I envision a guide covering browser choice, extension essentials, browser settings, and command line switches. Similar to the gHacks-user.js, if you will, except for Chromium, meaning that I can’t just refer to preexisting documentation coming from e.g. the Tor project in my research. This is even more experimental, I think no such cohesive guide is available yet. Let’s see if anything comes to pass, suffice to say that I already control the Brave browser and Ungoogled Chromium to a much higher degree than what is covered in my postings here so far. I have shaped their behavior according to my own ideas already, but even that is not yet extensive enough for a general guide, I feel. Stay tuned.

      11. Klaas Vaak said on September 30, 2020 at 5:10 pm
        Reply

        @Iron Heart: good point about the flags.

        You project sounds very interesting, and one that is bound to get a lot of attention considering that Chrome and the Chromium forks are the biggest user base by far.

        From the way you write about it I get the impression it is some way off yet, but that’s no issue, what counts is quality and usefulness.

      12. else said on September 28, 2020 at 11:36 am
        Reply

        @Klaas Vaak

        As currently a non-brave user I think its notable that brave chose to add a default-off toggle to cover that instead of removing it completely, IMO meaning they retain the capability to do the same again in the future. Deceitful, but the hysteria was overblown as ‘Hijacking’ seemingly by competitors doing the same.

        On firefox (mobile at least), usa top sites have been hardcoded in as suggestions for years (since focus), in functionally the same way but driving traffic to many more usa commercial sites. It can be tested with a clean install and typing single letters in the address bar.

      13. Iron Heart said on September 28, 2020 at 12:02 pm
        Reply

        @else

        They could enable that again, IF they disclose it and add a text informing users of their choice. As it stands, it’s off by default now.

        That being said, Brave is not a hobby project like Ungoogled Chromium (I don’t mean that pejoratively, btw), they are a company that needs funding. Since Brave is offered for free to the public, they have to find revenue sources apart from the user. They partially cover this with search engine royalties, but since Brave does not have a large market share, this doesn’t seem to be enough. So, what they do is to let partners display their logos on Brave’s Sponsored New Tab Pages (if you have those enabled). Their partners want to know how successful such campaigns are, which is why Brave users as a whole (not individually!) need to be identified on their websites, which is what the referral was for.

        Serious question: If you do not even allow their partners to anonymously count Brave users, which is a clean method of funding that doesn’t violate user privacy, how do you suggest they fund themselves? Yeah, search royalties, it’s not enough. To be honest with you, their method of funding is leagues ahead of collecting and selling user data, which some other companies do.

        PS: Even when it was turned on, the likelihood of someone even encountering the referral was 0% unless you are interested in cryptocurrencies – all the websites in question were related to cryptocurrency as a topic. But then again, even if someone encountered it, the privacy violation was exactly zero.

      14. Anonymous said on September 27, 2020 at 10:57 pm
        Reply
      15. Iron Heart said on September 28, 2020 at 11:20 am
        Reply

        @Anonymous

        As you can read in the article you linked to, the Brave team pointed their collective fingers at the problem of “web bundles”, while Mozilla deems them to be “non-harmful”:

        https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/264#issuecomment-634985878

        Now, what I was talking about is literally the current situation, where website content can still be differentiated from legitimate parts of the website. Google aims to cripple adblockers which achieve exactly that with Manifest V3, but built-in adblockers and system-wide adblockers are a solution to that problem (the potential disappearance of extensions like uBlock Origin).

        If and when Web Bundles gain traction, and are implemented in Chrome and Firefox, it’s game over anyway, unless a way to reverse-engineer such websites is found. Brave Software already spoke out against it and they will deactivate support for web bundles for the time being, but if and when major websites switch to that, we are pretty much screwed (unless we decide to deliberately exclude ourselves from such websites).

      16. digitalagedelusions said on September 29, 2020 at 12:11 am
        Reply

        In short – Brave is not better than others, when shit hits the fan, everyone gets its fair share…

      17. Iron Heart said on September 29, 2020 at 7:59 am
        Reply

        @digitalagedelusions

        Well, the „incident“ described for Brave here was unrelated to user privacy. Until user privacy is actually affected, I do not care really.

      18. No Thanks, MSNBCIAGooglesoft said on September 27, 2020 at 11:58 pm
        Reply

        Tell everyone you know to stop using Google Recaptcha on their sites! Google is extorting users by forcing them to sign up because some third party use a Google service. Furthermore, if you are not in the US demand from your politicians to do something about Google’s extortion and data theft, because US politicians have no intention to do anything about it and will block any domestic action against it.

        Google is a far worse problem for the world than Facebook!

      19. Prefersplants said on September 30, 2020 at 10:47 pm
        Reply

        @No Thanks, MSNBCIAGooglesoft

        A final CJEU decision was published on 16 July 2020 in Schrems II.[24][25] The EU-US Privacy Shield for data sharing was struck down by the European Court of Justice on the grounds it did not provide adequate protections to EU citizens on government snooping.[4] The European Data Protection Board (EDPD), an EU organization whose decisions are binding for national privacy supervisory authorities, declared that, “transfers on the basis of this legal framework are illegal.”[26]

    2. John G. said on September 27, 2020 at 4:47 pm
      Reply

      NoScript is like surfing the waves with a steel ball on the neck, it’s unusable in my opinion. :[

      1. Benjamin said on September 27, 2020 at 5:07 pm
        Reply

        well, there you said it…. i think the same because no script is rather crude. site specific settings are set globally instead of a per url basis.

        There is anything else for filtering scripts on a per site basis?

        I see that the hysteria about cookies is dwarfed by what java script can find out about your computer setup. Now mix that with your telco providers data…

    3. irregular frequenter said on September 28, 2020 at 11:51 pm
      Reply

      @iron heart
      Brave is not invulnerable of Manifestv3. Might be, but only time will tell, not you.

      What do you gain from this obsessive commenting here? Is it worth it? Does it feed you?

      1. Iron Heart said on September 29, 2020 at 8:03 am
        Reply

        @irregular frequenter

        Brave is invulnerable to Manifest V3 because Manifest V3 is related to browser extensions like uBlock Origin. Brave‘s internal adblocker was implemented natively, it is not a browser extension even today. Thus, it will continue to work even after Manifest V3 hits.

        As for my commenting, how I use my time is none of your business. Klaas Vaak asked a question, I replied in depth. That‘s all.

  4. microfix said on September 27, 2020 at 3:18 pm
    Reply

    If a lock popup appears after implementing these filters.
    Just use ‘block element’ in context menu of ublockO to kill it off. (this may be regional)

    1. m said on September 28, 2020 at 2:29 am
      Reply

      Thanks.

  5. Para said on September 27, 2020 at 3:52 pm
    Reply

    Thanks for these solutions, I hope they can get implemented in the annoyance filters.

  6. Klaas Vaak said on September 27, 2020 at 4:04 pm
    Reply

    Thanks Martin, the uBO filters work fine. I had recently started to get these annoying pop-ups. No more.

  7. John G. said on September 27, 2020 at 4:50 pm
    Reply

    Very useful tricks, thanks @Martin for solving these annoying and weird messagess too! :]

  8. Dave said on September 27, 2020 at 5:23 pm
    Reply

    I use Edge and I have it set to clear everything, everytime I close it, and I never see these popups you show.

    I only use AdBlock Plus and Tampermonkey (for ‘google clean dark’).

    I quit using google for search long ago when they started blocking VPN’s.

  9. Romanist said on September 27, 2020 at 5:24 pm
    Reply

    Have you actually checked PopUpOFF extension?

  10. David said on September 27, 2020 at 5:28 pm
    Reply

    Have you guys heard about PopUpOFF extension?

  11. Anonymous said on September 27, 2020 at 6:25 pm
    Reply

    Thank you Martin! I tried to solve this yesterday but now after reading your article I found a solution.

  12. Peter Gunn said on September 27, 2020 at 6:43 pm
    Reply

    The problem here with the uBO filters for YouTube mentioned in the article:
    http://www.youtube.com###dialog
    http://www.youtube.com##.opened
    is that YouTube’s ‘Search’ becomes unavailable after a few seconds.

    Here I use following uBO filters which do a better job, IMO (no popup and no Search issue) :
    youtube.com##ytd-popup-container
    youtube.com##ytd-consent-bump-lightbox.style-scope

    Concerning Google, which I never use except for images and maps, the uBO filters mentioned in the article work correctly but I prefer a script which resolves this Google issue. What the script does is that it sends a CONSENT cookie at Google as well as at YouTube, though the YouTube CONSENT doesn’t fix the Sign-in spam issue:

    Google Shut Up! AT [https://greasyfork.org/en/scripts/410687-google-shut-up/code]

    Generally speaking, Google has always been a pain and now its YouTube is becoming one as well.
    I increasingly avoid both.

    1. John said on September 28, 2020 at 9:41 am
      Reply

      Your filters don’t work at all for me. I just get a darkened screen and can’t click anything.

      1. Peter Gunn said on September 28, 2020 at 12:37 pm
        Reply

        @John, strange but understandable given the complexity of YouTube code with its ramifications to cookies, Web Storage and IndexedDB. Maybe adding Martin’s article edit which includes
        [www.youtube.com##.opened] (without the brackets of course)
        will work for you?

        Also, I’ve noticed that YouTube as well as all Google pages deeply rely on cache, cookies, Web Storage and IndexedDB. Once those cleaned up my filters (borrowed from a source I forgot) will make it? A radical way to clean up localStorage and IndexedDB is to check :
        about:preferences > Privacy & Security > History > Settings > Data > Offline Website Data

        Restart Firefox with uBO filters and check YouTube…

    2. plusminus_ said on September 28, 2020 at 7:45 pm
      Reply

      Thanks for this userscript!

  13. Stv said on September 27, 2020 at 7:19 pm
    Reply

    Saved my nerves! Thank you!

  14. TelV said on September 27, 2020 at 7:28 pm
    Reply

    Thank you very much Martin! The filters work in ABP+ which I’ve had to switch back to since UBO is no longer supported on Waterfox 56 unfortunately.

    That Google full screen overlay was a real pain in the posterior and I’m glad to see the back of it.

    1. Anonymous said on September 28, 2020 at 1:57 am
      Reply

      “UBO is no longer supported on Waterfox 56 unfortunately.”

      Last time I looked UBO Classic worked on Waterfox Classic, but if it doesn’t then UBO Webextension works on it too.

      1. TelV said on September 28, 2020 at 11:27 pm
        Reply

        @ Anonymous,

        The dev advised me that UBO isn’t supported on older versions / forks of FF when I posted the problem to github.

        ABP+ works OK at the moment anyway.

        By the way, re: your comment earlier about Google going to stop UBO working on youtube, I came across something similar myself today after trying to play a video about a veteran taking a parachute jump at age 95.

        Here’s a pix of what appeared. https://i.postimg.cc/g2KqGZg2/no-anon-allowed.png

      2. TelV said on October 21, 2020 at 10:17 am
        Reply

        @ Anonymous,

        I discovered a new version of UBO for Firefox legacy which works on Waterfox Classic without causing overheating problems like the first release did. Link to the download: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock-for-firefox-legacy/releases

  15. SpywareFan said on September 27, 2020 at 7:46 pm
    Reply

    Google is a Cancer.

    1. Peter Gunn said on September 28, 2020 at 5:35 pm
      Reply

      No idea really but certainly not a Virgo if you want my advice.

  16. Anonymous said on September 27, 2020 at 7:57 pm
    Reply

    I do this with many sites, including Outlook.com to get rid of the ad place holder.

    outlook.live.com##._2kV85sDX_mKePc7CEi5Bz2
    outlook.live.com##._1pHiM7jJITiO-ULj_dBGaM > ._3_hHr3kfEhbNYRFM5YJxH9
    outlook.live.com##._1TpU2KF6f_EeQiytBaYj8I > ._3_hHr3kfEhbNYRFM5YJxH9

  17. Duck said on September 27, 2020 at 8:24 pm
    Reply

    Quite sneaky by Google. Even if you thought you had unchecked the search spying, go visit YouTube and doublecheck THAT one’s options as well: turns out the search spying option is enabled there still. I don’t want to hide the popups, I want a way to DISABLE all of those automagically. Yes, I only use incognito mode and yes I clean every cookie after closing my web browser. Any solution to this? Oh and I am QUITE sure unchecking all those options do absolutely nothing, they are there just to make me believe I’m not spied on. Kinda like the placebo buttons in Windows 10 regarding telemetry, privacy and advertising.. Greed is ugly.

  18. Sampei Nihira said on September 27, 2020 at 8:29 pm
    Reply

    Problem also present in Google Translate.
    I solved it by blocking gstatic.com

    1. Klaas Vaak said on September 28, 2020 at 7:28 pm
      Reply

      @Sampei Nihira: that’s funny. I have enabled gstatic because without it I don’t get the dropdown arrow to choose the language.

      1. Klaas Vaak said on September 28, 2020 at 7:29 pm
        Reply

        @Sampei Nihira: …… despite gstatic being enabled I don’t get any popups.

  19. Allwynd said on September 27, 2020 at 9:58 pm
    Reply

    I started noticing this thing about 1-2 weeks ago and it’s really annoying. As long as you’re signed into your Google account, the thing doesn’t appear, but if you use Incognito mode, it’s there every time. It’s beyond annoying.

    Maybe ad-blocking filters will soon adjust to it and have it on by default.

    The way things are heading, I have a feeling it will only keep getting worse and worse.

  20. John said on September 27, 2020 at 11:46 pm
    Reply

    Thanks, it works as you said. But the videos pausing is a bit annoying.

    I wish some extension (like Enhancer for Youtube) would deal with this properly.

  21. Martin said on September 28, 2020 at 12:43 am
    Reply

    On Youtube I still got this “keyhole image” when I set the mentioned filters in uBlockOrigin.
    I let uBlock create a filter to also block this image.
    On Google the “Before you continue” message still appears when I use Google Translate e.g.

    1. TelV said on September 28, 2020 at 11:35 pm
      Reply

      @ Martin said,

      The keyhole image is part of the popup which used to appear to ask you to login. It can be seen in the second screenshot in this article.

      To remove it, just scroll down a bit and it will disappear. Alternatively use the Block element option in ABP+ or the Zapper in UBO.

  22. m said on September 28, 2020 at 1:25 am
    Reply

    I added all 4, but i still get a youtube pop-up of just the lock image:
    http://www.gstatic.com/youtube/img/promos/growth/dmod_si_horizontal_ver1_240x400.png

    1. Paul(us) said on September 28, 2020 at 11:22 am
      Reply

      Hoi M, I have only add to uBlock:

      Google popups

      youtube.com##ytd-popup-container
      youtube.com##ytd-consent-bump-lightbox.style-scope

      http://www.youtube.com##.opened

      http://www.google.com###lb
      http://www.google.com##:root:style(overflow-y: visible !important;)

      This works like a charm for me.No more youtube pop-up, just the lock image or stuttering!

      And Martin a realy great articel again. Thanks for this!

  23. John said on September 28, 2020 at 3:00 am
    Reply

    The real way to fix the problem is to train the public to never capitulate to marketing tactics like this. Whether it be Windows 10, Microsoft Edge, Youtube Red, whatever.

  24. plusminus said on September 28, 2020 at 8:50 am
    Reply

    This has been a particularly annoying update. I found this FF extension and have been trying it out: https://addons.mozilla.org/android/addon/google-consent/

    It has been working for me on Google search pages but not YouTube.

  25. Craig said on September 28, 2020 at 9:19 am
    Reply

    Please, any help for google.co.uk/maps?

    Thank you!

    1. Martin Brinkmann said on September 28, 2020 at 11:13 am
      Reply

      Try these

      ! 2020-09-28 https://www.google.co.uk
      ||consent.google.com/$subdocument
      www.google.co.uk##.widget-consent-fullscreen.widget-consent

      1. Craig said on September 28, 2020 at 12:31 pm
        Reply

        Thank you! :) Works like a charm. I swear Google is doing this to coerce people into signing in permanently and Google beneftting from all that data harvesting.

  26. else said on September 28, 2020 at 12:00 pm
    Reply

    I find that adding the last 3 (ytd-popup-container etc) disables ability to set dark theme from the settings popup. The first 2 seem to work although its early to tell as its hit and miss and there was some blocking here previously with only the keyhole image showing now and then.

  27. Manish Sahay said on September 28, 2020 at 12:22 pm
    Reply

    There’s a type in the post: NewPipe (not NewsPipe).

    Thanks for the tips. I also use the uBlock Origin filter method on PC, and NewPipe app on Android.

    1. Martin Brinkmann said on September 28, 2020 at 1:07 pm
      Reply

      Thank you, corrected!

  28. Femail said on September 28, 2020 at 1:35 pm
    Reply

    I recommend reading the book “The Age of Surveillance Capitalism” by Shoshana Zuboff.

  29. Mothy said on September 28, 2020 at 3:16 pm
    Reply

    I avoid this issue simply by not using either website directly. Instead for the occasional YouTube video I often use a DuckDuckGo search which provides an option to watch within the search result. Otherwise in general I avoid using anything Google except for Maps every once in a while.

  30. basicuser said on September 28, 2020 at 6:13 pm
    Reply

    Now you:  Use a different method?

    I use YouTube to listen to music, but have never seen those popups or overlays. To get into YouTube, I uae Pale Moon and DuckDuckGo to search, for example, “blue grass music”. There are always YouTube links for blue grass music, often featured at the top of the listings. Clicking one of those links opens YouTube but those popups are not seen, just that link plus listings in the right sidebar. YouTube search works just fine to go from there if you want. So no need to sign in. BTW, I scrub all cookies leaving YT.

  31. Aron11 said on September 28, 2020 at 7:20 pm
    Reply

    On YouTube doesn’t work anymore the possibility to change the theme from Light to Dark and on Translator appear the window “Before you continue”.

  32. MM2xA said on September 28, 2020 at 7:42 pm
    Reply

    On YouTube it is no longer possible to change the theme (Light to Dark or vice versa) and the popup “Before you continue” appears on the Translator.

    1. Iron Heart said on September 29, 2020 at 1:19 pm
      Reply
  33. Anonymous said on September 28, 2020 at 11:14 pm
    Reply

    I tried above procedure. And tested it at a news-site of Google. That did not work.
    I finally found it to only work with the site mentioned in the filter-rule.
    So for every Google-site with a different name you probably have to make a filter-rule. I stopped further trying.

  34. ULBoom said on September 29, 2020 at 4:47 am
    Reply

    For what it’s worth if anyone reads this far down, especially after the wtf theses above, I only see these pop ups if I’m signed into a Google owned site and visit another one or some junk site such as Pinterest that’s been invaded by Google.

    For example, recently I was uploading an Eventing video of our flying sport horse to You Tube and blundered into a number of these nag (tee hee) screens while it was uploading.

    Wonder what clown group in Google decided to spawn these things? The Incremental Revenue Increase Annoyance Reach Out Experience Committee?

    Otherwise, I suppose AdGuard System is doing its job blocking these annoyances. Sweet program, browser independent.

  35. TelV said on September 29, 2020 at 12:48 pm
    Reply

    Tip from ShintoPlasm to use Kill-Sticky in this thread: https://www.ghacks.net/2020/09/27/how-to-deal-with-googles-and-youtubes-aggressive-popups-before-you-continue-sign-in/#comments

    I’ve just installed it myself and it works on sites that I usually visit to remove elements which interfere with your reading pleasure. Here’s the link to the addon on Mozilla: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/kill-sticky/

  36. Anonymous said on September 29, 2020 at 4:30 pm
    Reply

    Para said on September 27, 2020 at 3:52 pm
    – – – I hope they can get implemented in the annoyance filters.

    Can someone tell if noticing that it will implemented in the annoyance filters? I think it’s a better solution to have fixed in filter list than using own filters. I mean Google is messing things and it will stop working sooner or later.

  37. Anonymous said on October 1, 2020 at 2:26 am
    Reply

    I abandoned above suggestions because I experienced it to be almost unworkable.
    And I started to skip out as much as possible of Google-related web-sites and search-engines.

    However to my surprise I now experience that the Google-news-site is bearable again.
    The disgusting popup doesn’t ramble around any more, it still flashes a short time. A delight w.r.t. earlier.
    I don’t know if it is because of an accidentally right set of some settings or because of some changed extension (-setting).

    However I will stay alert on methods of keeping brutality out.

  38. TelV said on October 2, 2020 at 5:33 pm
    Reply

    @ Martin,

    youtube.com##ytd-popup-container blocks copying the link to a video using the SHARE button.

  39. Ted said on October 3, 2020 at 10:52 pm
    Reply

    I tried all filters but they don’t work except http://www.youtube.com/##.opened – but this one isn’t good. As explained, search is disabled and we always have to click triangle for playback. Well, one way is to turn ublock off four youtube once, click “no thanks” and “i agree” on popups then turn ublock on.

  40. Rxxx said on October 7, 2020 at 2:05 pm
    Reply

    Hi, I tried several variants, only that one worked:

    youtube.com##ytd-popup-container
    youtube.com##ytd-consent-bump-lightbox.style-scope
    http://www.youtube.com##.opened

    but only for a few times, and the video always stopped playing so that I had to click the red/white “start video” button in the very middle.

    But then after the few times now the grey overlay is back and I am unable to start the video. Did google by any chance changed the code so that the ublock code needs to be altered?

    The only way to watch any yt stuff is put “gen” in front of youtube.com so that the video loads in http://www.genyt.xyz . Sadly I have no clue if genyt.xyz is helping me with getting more privacy vs google.

  41. Anonymous said on October 9, 2020 at 12:51 am
    Reply

    Just don’t use Google.

    Google Search => DuckDuckGo
    G Suite => LibreOffice
    Gmail => iCloud or Outlook

  42. Anna said on October 14, 2020 at 12:03 am
    Reply

    I stopped to used google.com because of privacy and willing to stop use youtube.com too. It’s hard to stop to use google, but it’s a big joy and satisfaction too. Though, not easy stuff. I use duckduckgo.com and it’s not enough at all – but I search free! :D /no illegal acting like google and others/

  43. jack said on October 18, 2020 at 1:58 pm
    Reply

    dont use that chinese shit called brave, you’ll be handling them all your stuff! the get payed for pushing you ads!

  44. Oscar said on October 19, 2020 at 1:34 pm
    Reply

    Hi! Is there a way to prevent YouTube from stop playing the video after a few seconds with these options enabled? It is fine to block the popup, but when you’re listening to a playlist, this will cause the player to stop every time it moves to the next song…

  45. TelV said on October 21, 2020 at 10:10 am
    Reply

    @ Martin,

    Amend https://invidio.us/ to one of the alternatives on the landing page. For example: https://invidious.kavin.rocks/ The former has closed down.

  46. PeterPan said on October 22, 2020 at 11:32 am
    Reply

    Nothing mentioned in the article or in the comments worked for me (uBO and the newest Firefox). Are there any special settings in uBO that should be on or off? Some stuff that should be blocked or not? Canvas blocking, WebGL, or so?

    But I can also offer a completely different trick:
    Start the Tor Browser (“Safer” mode is ok) to make your research on youtube and to get the link to the desired video. And then use the versatile command line tool youtube-dl to directly download the video. No need of any weird browser addons or “conversion” websites where you never know what kind of data they secretly collect. – For a maximum of privacy.

Leave a Reply

Check the box to consent to your data being stored in line with the guidelines set out in our privacy policy

We love comments and welcome thoughtful and civilized discussion. Rudeness and personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please stay on-topic.
Please note that your comment may not appear immediately after you post it.