3 ms·

Noscript is not an option anymore. Too many sites rely on javascript. I'll take the memory hit every time to use adblock.

by mmgutz 12y ago

_JamesA_ 12y ago
I would counter and say NoScript is still an option. I want to control what sites I allow to execute scripts in my browser rather than give global authority to any random site I may happen to land on. I see no value in allowing scripts from Facebook or Twitter, for example, to run on any of the sites I visit.
- jccalhoun 12y ago
  I would agree with the op that noscript is not an option any more but only because I think the widespread use of javascript makes it mandatory for sane web use.
gorhill 12y ago
Blocking scripts is still a good habit. Many web sites requires scripts to work properly, but then for many web sites a lot of users won't really care whether all the "features" work, so long as they display the important content just fine. For example, for someone just wanting to casually browse on random web sites, blocking 3rd-party scripts/frames is no hurdle, as the important content most of the time can be viewed. Examples: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Dynamic-filtering:-Benefits-of-blocking-3rd-party-script-and-iframe-tags https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Dynamic-filtering:-Be...
wtallis 12y ago
Blocking third-party scripts while allowing first-party scripts works just fine on most sites. You may have to whitelist several CDN domains, but you can blacklist the ad network domains and get most of the benefits.
ww520 12y ago
I use Yesscript, which allows blacklisting of specific sites.
- wutbrodo 12y ago
  In case you're on Chrome, this is allowable (and super-accessible) by default, by clicking on the icon at the beginning of the URL bar.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
ChrisGranger 12y ago
NoScript does a lot more than just blocking JavaScript. You can allow all JS by default but continue to use its other tools.
wutbrodo 12y ago
You'd be surprised. I use JS-blocking on a blacklist basis, but previously I was using a JS whitelist: the first week or two was a little annoying as I remembered the ~dozen sites I use that required JS for their use. After that though, the vast majority of the one-off sites that I'd visit were content (like articles etc), and for those the actual desirable content is usually completely visible without JS (and everything loaded a heeeell of a lot quicker). Maybe once a month I'd come across a site that did something stupid like load the article text through JS, and if I felt like it it's quick couple of clicks on the Chrome URL bar to whitelist the domain for JS.

Noscript is not an option anymore. Too many sites rely on javascript. I'll take the memory hit every time to use adblock.

by mmgutz 12y ago

Noscript is not an option anymore. Too many sites rely on javascript. I'll take the memory hit every time to use adblock.

_JamesA_ 12y ago

I would counter and say NoScript is still an option. I want to control what sites I allow to execute scripts in my browser rather than give global authority to any random site I may happen to land on. I see no value in allowing scripts from Facebook or Twitter, for example, to run on any of the sites I visit.

jccalhoun 12y ago
I would agree with the op that noscript is not an option any more but only because I think the widespread use of javascript makes it mandatory for sane web use.

gorhill 12y ago

Blocking scripts is still a good habit. Many web sites requires scripts to work properly, but then for many web sites a lot of users won't really care whether all the "features" work, so long as they display the important content just fine. For example, for someone just wanting to casually browse on random web sites, blocking 3rd-party scripts/frames is no hurdle, as the important content most of the time can be viewed. Examples: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Dynamic-filtering:-Benefits-of-blocking-3rd-party-script-and-iframe-tags https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Dynamic-filtering:-Be...

wtallis 12y ago

Blocking third-party scripts while allowing first-party scripts works just fine on most sites. You may have to whitelist several CDN domains, but you can blacklist the ad network domains and get most of the benefits.

ww520 12y ago

I use Yesscript, which allows blacklisting of specific sites.

wutbrodo 12y ago
In case you're on Chrome, this is allowable (and super-accessible) by default, by clicking on the icon at the beginning of the URL bar.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

ChrisGranger 12y ago

NoScript does a lot more than just blocking JavaScript. You can allow all JS by default but continue to use its other tools.

wutbrodo 12y ago

You'd be surprised. I use JS-blocking on a blacklist basis, but previously I was using a JS whitelist: the first week or two was a little annoying as I remembered the ~dozen sites I use that required JS for their use. After that though, the vast majority of the one-off sites that I'd visit were content (like articles etc), and for those the actual desirable content is usually completely visible without JS (and everything loaded a heeeell of a lot quicker). Maybe once a month I'd come across a site that did something stupid like load the article text through JS, and if I felt like it it's quick couple of clicks on the Chrome URL bar to whitelist the domain for JS.