Google Analytics Opt-Out Browser Add-On

45 points by knappe 4 months ago | 46 comments
  • Havoc 4 months ago
    Normalizing that invasive tracking is opt out while making opt out of their shenanigans intentionally hard (manufest3)

    Do Be Evil

    • hedora 4 months ago
      Not hard; impossible. They gather data from non online services, app malware, logged out browsers, etc, etc. How do I opt those things out?

      I’ve long thought we need a way to run sybil attacks against trackers, with the goal that all the numbers and statistics these things produce would be off by at least an order of magnitude (in both directions, at random).

      • Larrikin 4 months ago
        Run Ad Nauseum instead of plain uBlock Origin. The websites get clicks on their ads, you still don't see any ads, and you poison your ad profile. Everybody wins.
        • SahAssar 4 months ago
          Except you since that does not fix privacy concerns. And the website since the value per click/view gets lowered. And you again since the ad-companies will try to develop methods to discern what is a real click vs what is not and that makes privacy worse. And the advertiser since they won't know what ads are effective. And the ad-companies since they now need to spend time/money on fake clicks.

          Oh wait, seems like nobody wins?

        • generj 4 months ago
          At one point I made a simple extension that maliciously edited Google and Adobe Analytics tracking requests, alongside setting the DNT header. Junk data (especially page names slightly off, etc) is infuriating for analytics users. If enough people had a “respect my DNT header or deal with it” extension I think DNT would have succeeded.

          Working at the time in the web analytics field I never released it.

      • bhhaskin 4 months ago
        This is just a way for Google to go "See! They aren't using the add-on. They are giving us consent to sell their data!"
        • gotimo 4 months ago
          Relevant: RFC 35140: The Do-Not-Stab flag in the HTTP Header

          https://www.5snb.club/posts/2023/do-not-stab/

          • mrweasel 4 months ago
            Google, and so many others, failed to do the logical check: If this was off by default, would users enable it? If not, then it doesn't need to be a feature.

            If the domain wasn't google.com, this would look like a fairly sketchy click. At least for Firefox, this isn't a link to an add-on, rather it's a download. While I understand that no everything in addons.mozilla.org is to be trusted, I don't think it's a good idea to train people to install random things they download from weird looking random pages online.

            • idle_zealot 4 months ago
              > Google, and so many others, failed to do the logical check: If this was off by default, would users enable it? If not, then it doesn't need to be a feature.

              You fundamentally misunderstand the forces at play if you think this is a failure on their part. They are incentivized financially to be user hostile. There is no magical moral compass embedded within the market that rewards those who make product decisions based on what people want, or what's good for them. They're an ads and tracking company. Approximately nobody would opt-in to their dragnet. Their whole operation is using free services as bait to track and manipulate as many aspects of human life as possible. There is no meeting where someone internally might say "hey, what do you think the user wants, what's best for them?" It's "we want the users to feel/do X, how do we get them there?"

              • mrweasel 4 months ago
                > You fundamentally misunderstand the forces at play

                Sadly I do understand, I just don't want to.

              • lelandfe 4 months ago
                Also Google:

                Would you like to open this link in your phone’s default browser or download Chrome?

                Yes/Download/Ask me again every time

                • rpastuszak 4 months ago
                  More like “paid 20bn to ignore that logical check”: https://untested.sonnet.io/notes/defaults-matter-dont-assume...
                  • wartijn_ 4 months ago
                    That logical check only makes sense if you assume that the users of Google analytics are people visiting websites. But that’s obviously not the case here Google Analytics is added a website by whoever runs that website, and they very much did enable it.
                • smjburton 4 months ago
                  Wouldn't using Pi-hole or Adguard work in this case without the need to install a browser extension? These solutions are also more comprehensive because they block Google Analytics for all devices throughout a network.
                  • knappe 4 months ago
                    Mostly. I run a pihole and it blocks most traffic, but of course it depends on updates to the denylist to keep up to date on what to block. uBlock helps here, but uBlock doesn't run in chrome now.
                  • HelloUsername 4 months ago
                    Previous discussions:

                    24-sept-2023 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37636447 34 comments

                    16-dec-2020 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25439834 172 comments

                    25-mar-2019 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19479809 41 comments

                    • Animats 4 months ago
                      Does this prevent Google Analytics from working, or does it tell Google that you don't want Google Analytics. There's a difference.

                      Most sites work with googletagmanager.com blocked. Privacy Badger will block it if you ask, although it gives you a warning that some sites may break. Generally not ones you really need.

                      • fwn 4 months ago
                        It does

                            (function() {
        var a = document.createElement("script");
        a.type = "text/javascript";
        a.id = "__gaOptOutExtension";
        a.innerText = 'window["_gaUserPrefs"] = { ioo : function() { return true; } }';
        document.documentElement.insertBefore(a, document.documentElement.firstChild);
    })()
                        here

                            "matches": [
      "http://*/*",
      "https://*/*"
    ]
                        • zaruvi 4 months ago
                          Thanks for checking! Stealing this and adding it to my global userscript, just in case ublock doesn't catch the download.
                          • hedora 4 months ago
                            Unless I’m misreading the code, it looks like it’s running GA, but giving it an opt-out signal to harvest.
                      • yesbut 4 months ago
                        We already have uBlock origin for this.
                        • zgeor 4 months ago
                          Is uBlock working with the latest Chrome version? Mine got disabled automatically, and I had tonmove to uBlock lite
                          • Tepix 4 months ago
                            Why not switch to another browser instead that doesn't violate your privacy?
                            • zgeor 4 months ago
                              Firefox has been my main driver for many years, but I still have to use Chrome from time to time
                              • bolognafairy 4 months ago
                                [dead]
                              • eu 4 months ago
                                you could simply enable it back.
                                • knowitnone 4 months ago
                                  no you can't. and even if you keep it, it's not going to run.
                                  • nickthegreek 4 months ago
                                    for a limited time.
                              • MattTheRealOne 4 months ago
                                Just a reminder that extensions can be used to fingerprint your browser, so installing this makes you more unique and easier to track. It is recommended to keep browser extensions to a minimum.

                                uBlock Origin, as well as many other ad blockers, can already do this making this extension redundant.

                                • rchaud 4 months ago
                                  I had this when it was called UBO.
                                  • pacifika 4 months ago
                                    I think that is a 20 year old page and I would test to see if it actually works.

                                    Eero just blocks the domains afaik.

                                    • sunaookami 4 months ago
                                      I thought so too because the design is very old but the addon actually uses Manifest v3 which is new. So it's still maintained.
                                    • amarcheschi 4 months ago
                                      Does anybody know how this compares with other "similar" privacy extensions?
                                      • rchaud 4 months ago
                                        This just opts you out of GA. There are a million other scripts running on most websites, like Adobe Analytics, Meta Pixel, Microsoft Clarity, etc.
                                      • lazyeye 4 months ago
                                        I'm going to assume this is a way for Google to track you in every other way except via Analytics.

                                        "Hide your evil"

                                        • 486sx33 4 months ago
                                          Opt-out add-on Makes me say, f** you
                                          • knowitnone 4 months ago
                                            so their Add-on will keep track of you instead and do a better job at it
                                            • RamRodification 4 months ago
                                              The Do-not-track setting (header) was just too darn inconvenient to use /s