• Damage@feddit.it
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    If a tool is demonstrably indispensable to disable some browsers’ functionality, is it wise for browsers to have that functionality?

    • JPAKx4@piefed.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      I like it being extensible instead, as some adblocks might be opinionated or unresponsive. It’s easier to swap adblocks then browsers.

    • helpImTrappedOnline@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      There may be genuine use cases to run a script, or whatever the attacker used. The problem is the browsers will auto-run stuff, the user isn’t aware and there’s no way to stop it. All unlock does is provide the missing security layer called “don’t auto run shit from the web”.

        • ∃∀λ@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          The NoScript extension will properly do this. The extension blocks domains from running scripts except those you’ve whitelisted. There’s a drop down that displays a list of domains from which the page wishes to run scripts. It makes much of the web a pain to use, though. I sometimes have to go through a loop of whitelisting a subset of domains which want to run followed by a page refresh until the page works. Javascript is often not optional. If you had to live like Richard Stallman professes you should, you’d probably have to join the Amish.