3 ms·
> The author described the modern web browsing experience to a tee. It's awful and one of the reasons my web browsing is limited to very few sites and I'm caref
by coldpie 7y ago
> The author described the modern web browsing experience to a tee. It's awful and one of the reasons my web browsing is limited to very few sites and I'm careful on what I click on.
NoScript is pretty useful for this. If a website doesn't work without JavaScript, odds are very good the author's incentives are something other than to convey information, so the content is probably not worth consuming anyway.
- welly 7y agoI'll give that a try!
- mrob 7y agoAnd in many cases (including this article), Firefox's Reader View will fix websites that don't work without JavaScript. As a bonus, it also removes all "design".
- arkades 7y agoIt's kind of shocking how often I use Reader View now, particularly on mobile. If stripping a page of all design elements is a feature, how is that design not intrinsically user-hostile?
- UI_at_80x24 7y agoI used to use NoScript religiously, but since the move to `quantum` I couldn't seem to get it to work right. Either I couldn't understand the icon system or or was buggy. Has it improved since then?
- cptskippy 7y agoQuantum deprecated the old method of Add-On development in favor of Web Extensions. NoScript didn't have a Web Extensions version initially and has been working out the transition ever since. But that was 2 years ago...
- coldpie 7y agoThere was a hiccup during the Firefox WebExtension switch, but it has been working fine for a long time now. I even use it on mobile, which is a lifesaver.
- Deimorz 7y agoI switched to uMatrix when NoScript wasn't working with Quantum yet. I think I like it better than NoScript now anyway, and have never gone back.