Yes, but uBlock and can do everything IDCAC can do, and more, so there's no point in having both installed.

Sure but what if you only care about cookie warnings and use site that are supported by ads?

Technically speaking, uBlock origin is not strictly an ad blocker. It is a general purpose content blocker; it will block whatever content is matched by its block lists; and it happens to ship with ad lists enabled by default.

Of course, practically speaking it doesn't just "happen" to block ads; that's a major motivation for its development, and so we usually just refer to it as an ad blocker.

To answer your question directly: if you want ads and no cookie popups, disable the ad lists and enable the cookie popup list.

Yes, at that point you may as well just install the other addon, but the uBlock method preserves a key advantage: the ability to combine multiple cookie popup block lists. This is useful in case several people are making lists that cover different corners of the internet.

Tangential question, but I would love to know if a group of people who prefer ads but not cookie warnings exist? Do they rank supporting the website above minor inconvenience of pop-ups and advertisements? That's gotta be a unicorn in terms of internet users.

Uh, I'm in this group.

I think that if I'm visiting a website and using its bandwidth, the website ought to get paid. If the ads are too egregious, then using the website isn't "worth the cost" and I go to a different website.

I do however pay for Scroll[1], and I use Firefox's Enhanced Tracking Protection. Due to the latter, many websites think I'm using an adblocker and complain, which really irks me.

---

1: https://scroll.com/

You don't support the website by seeing ads. The only reason why anyone is paying for ads in the first place is because it affects the bottom line. So if you just see ads and don't buy the things they are pushing, the price that advertisers are willing to pay will decrease over time.

Only when you make a purchase based on an ad are you supporting anyone. At that point you should just buy the better product and support the website by sending them money instead of buying a shitty product that has advertising priced in.

You'd be surprised if you knew how indoctrinated teens get in terms of not blocking ads on their favorite youtuber's channel.

I like ads. Instagram story interstitials are very enjoyable ads.

Whitelist the good sites? Given that the vast majority of sites run garbage and/or intrusive ads, auto-playing videos, etc. and I don't really care about supporting most of them, a blacklist-first approach makes sense and I just whitelist the very few on which I'll accept ads.

You can use sites that are supported by ads just fine with adblock. Why couldn't you?

It blocks ads, so the sites can't produce content.

You'd still be better to use uBO since it's the more actively developed software.

Using sites that are infested by ads is the very reason to use an ad blocker.

For some people. Others don't consider advertising to be evil.