3 ms·
I'm pretty sure if NoScript had a default that allowed *.domain and domain, most sites would render quite ok. That's my experience from using it for years and y
by fwsgonzo 4y ago
I'm pretty sure if NoScript had a default that allowed *.domain and domain, most sites would render quite ok. That's my experience from using it for years and years. There are sites that require a few extra things, however many of those are repeated across sites: google fonts, jquery etc.
To be honest, I feel like there is a user-friendlier version of NoScript that should make us feel mostly unhindered. I don't know the consequences of always allowing the sites domain, though. Many trackers have their own domains.
- RamRodification 4y agoI would pay for a curated whitelist of things (domains?) to be whitelisted in NoScript. As I'm typing this I am realizing that I have never looked for such a whitelist. Maybe there is some community maintained thing? Is there an established AV product that has this feature? Right now I am slowly and painfully building my own whitelist because everything is blocked by default and I allow as needed.
- fn-mote 4y ago> I would pay for a curated whitelist of things (domains?) to be whitelisted in NoScript. However much you would pay, advertisers would pay more. It seems unlikely that you the value you assign to a whitelist would be more than the value advertisers assign to being seen... by all NoScript users. You would be out-bid by corruption.
- RamRodification 4y agoYou are probably right. Also I suspect the choice to whitelist or not can be hard to agree on. Maybe block all advertising things. Maybe only some of it. Maybe allow everything that isn't straight up malicious. And so on.
- txtsd 4y agoThere used to be assets maintained by a particular person for uMatrix that had decent defaults for services, with only non-essential stuff blocked. I can't remember what it was called for the life of me.