If they are going to do that, then there is little point in having an ad blocker.Īlso, should users go the extra step and control 3rd party site access, Request Policy (of old) and uMatrix. With all ad blockers there is an overhead, the user really has to be in control (time and hassle) of what is allowed and what should remain blocked and not just allow all. Well NoScript had previously shot itself in the foot, by adding a great number of sites to load scripts in their default allow list/s and this apparently was more revenue related than not an issue.Īt that point many dropped NoScript in favour of uBlock Origin. Is everybody blind to what is happening? (info credits go to security dot nl's Aha) The going gets narrow, Internet freedom and your last vestiges of privacy are at stake. This is one part of the story, the other is it conflicts with the demands of Big Silicon Valley Tech firms ad-launching circus and Deep State Surveillance, so root it out, block it, make it no longer available, much of that seen also in the Russian Federation now with encrypted chat-apps being officially blocked. Who looks under the *hood aka in the browser developer's console can see what (s)he/it blocks or not (but it only seems polonus and a few other's are capable of deciding what to block and what not). We have the following dilemma: Blocking scripts creates disfunctionality, allowing (all) threats and risks.įor the non-tech-savvy the in between is no option. This means a victory for the general dumbed down click-sh**ple, facebook's Mr.

This is where the crisis stems from NoScript has now being blacklisted and is being blocked as an extension, while it apparently breaks webpages (in the hands of the uninformed and non-tech-savvy).

Scripts can import all sort of functionality into a browser, but they are also easily abused by malcreants to inject all sorts of malcode into your browser.

Pale moon crisis uncensor patch