3 ms·
One word: uMatrix. NoScript lacks control on per-site basis, but is still ok.
by Drdrdrq 8y ago
One word: uMatrix. NoScript lacks control on per-site basis, but is still ok.
- paulryanrogers 8y agoIIRC, Noscript had per-domain JS controls before Umatrix existed.
- squarefoot 8y agoBut lacked fine grained control, at least the last time I used it. With uMatrix I can tell the browser to disable something (cookies/script/frames/media etc.) here but keep it enabled else/everywhere and the other way around. It gives the finest possible control but of course requires some time to whitelist the good stuff on new pages. A minor annoyance compared to the control it offers.
- matheusmoreira 8y agoI wish it allowed for even finer control, though. What if it could prevent one specific function from running? Or replace tracking functions with no-op ones? Or hook into HTTP APIs in order to let you audit, modify or interrupt communications?
- Drdrdrq 8y agoI guess you could use GreaseMonkey for that, though I can't imagine how you could keep track of everything. Might be useful for smallish modifications though.
- staticassertion 8y agoYeah, noscript is pretty powerful. The biggest difference between the two, in my experience, is UX. uMatrix is the best UX for a content blocker I've ever seen - very intuitive and simple.