Google tests ‘script blocking’ in Chrome Incognito to boost privacy

Comments

• killea@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  Yep, noscript on firefox has been available for like 15 years. And it certainly does “break” some sites as it blocks scripts by default. It can be a pain, though I consider it the safest way

  source

  • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨35⁩ ⁨minutes⁩ ago

    I like uBlock Origin’s “medium mode.” It’s a nice middle ground

    source
  • MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip ⁨3⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    Since the web works via a DOM (Document Object Model) and a document that needs to execute active content to display anything is broken, a webpage that needs JS to load the document can safely considered broken.

    source

    • atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works ⁨36⁩ ⁨minutes⁩ ago

      You are talking about the difference between a website and a web application. Nothing is broken. Given that the alternative used the be Flash/Coldfusion I’m not sure this way is worse.

      source
    • killea@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      I was trying to explain it more practically, but yes the web is a wasteland l.

      source
• n3cr0@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  Doesn’t that break most websites? Is google trying to make the inkognito mode less useful?

  source

  • MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip ⁨2⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    About 1/4 is broken, about 3/4 of the working ones show no popups/“paywalls”.

    source
  • Pro@programming.dev ⁨5⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    Nope, matter of fact it fixed a lot of websites.

    source
• WhiteOakBayou@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  Good on chrome I guess but if they are testing blocking js then I assume they are about to offer a less easy to block alternative

  source
• individual@toast.ooo ⁨3⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  dramatic irony

  source
• Pro@programming.dev ⁨5⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  YaY

  Even Firefox didn’t do that.

  source

  • NocturnalEngineer@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    WTF you on about? Firefox has the NoScript extension, which Mozilla recommends?

    source