3 ms·
Do you have a reason that extends beyond preference? Is the result worth the price?
by shanebellone 4y ago
Do you have a reason that extends beyond preference? Is the result worth the price?
- Semaphor 4y agoThe vast majority of sites work with some defaults (mainly CDNs), and it stops almost all 3rd party tracking. The minor inconvenience of sometimes having to whitelist some stuff is acceptable to me.
- michaelt 4y agoIt tends to be good for security. For example, it blocks a great many XSS attacks, as if every website had a strict content-security-policy header. Or if some joker on a website adds <img src="http://192.168.0.1/reboot-router.php http://192.168.0.1/reboot-router.php"> or suchlike you're protected. Websites that want to host sketchy untrusted content use iframes to external domains, so the sketchy content can't grab the user's cookies. If the website didn't trust the third party, why should you? It can also block a variety of "features" that are actually annoyances - like third-party live chat popups, third-party cookie consent nag screens etc. In terms of the price, how troublesome it is will depend on your web browsing needs. If you're a professional buyer visiting dozens of different companies' websites every day, you might find it inconvenient. But if most of your time is divided between your 10 favourite websites? Once you've got the whitelist right you'll barely notice it.