2700
submitted 1 year ago by Spudwart@lemmy.world to c/memes@lemmy.ml
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] persolb@lemmy.ml 48 points 1 year ago

I love it in theory… but it just broke so many websites I needed to use. And not always in obvious ways.

[-] navi@lemmy.tespia.org 10 points 1 year ago

uBlock does this occasionally as well. Still worth it.

[-] persolb@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 year ago

UBlock is much more reliable than no script in my experience. It’s also usually obvious when it breaks; no script sometimes isn’t obvious until you hit submit and notice none of what you typed actually got sent.

[-] z3rOR0ne@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Then just put those sites on your trust list?

You can go through all the sites the initial HTTP request calls out to and decide which ones get a pass. This is how I ensure sites like gstatic, googletagmanager, etc. don't collect data even though the rest of the site works.

If that's too much, just open the flood gates for that site and trust everything there. At least it isn't just sending all your data out by DEFAULT.

[-] gammasfor@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Yeah these days literally every website uses JavaScript in some format as modern reactive design is easier to do if you can execute client side code. Blocking JavaScript is a sledgehammer solution to the problem.

[-] OfficerBribe@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Same here. I used NoScript in the past and remembering whitelisting way too often so dumped it in the end. Now I just use uBlock with I think some built-in javascript block of known bad hosts.

this post was submitted on 13 Aug 2023
2700 points (100.0% liked)

Memes

45901 readers
1093 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS