How many of you don't surf the web without noscript ?

**PapaGary** · September 2nd, 2011

I don't understand. What terrible, awful things are going to happen without noscript?

**juancarlospaco** · September 2nd, 2011

Congratulations, you are giving Adobe a lot of Money made by Flash.

If you dont like a Web with Effects and such, use the Mobile Version instead, but dont mess with HTML5 (HTML5,CSS3,JS).

**Tibuda** · September 3rd, 2011

I don't use NoScript because I don't see porn.

**Lucradia** · September 3rd, 2011

I use adblock (usually with element hider) so I don't really need it.

**KingYaba** · September 3rd, 2011

Originally Posted by Random_Dude

I always browse with NoScript + Adblock + BetterPrivacy.

If I can, why not? Better safe than sorry, and it feels like the pages load faster.

Add the Ghostery addon to your privacy stuff. And yes be safe. Noscript is a mandatory lecture when I'm helping family members.

**neu5eeCh** · September 3rd, 2011

Originally Posted by Tibuda

I don't use NoScript because I don't see porn.

You don't see porn? What, is that like color blindness? - like you don't see the color red?

But I kid. The tube sites are said to be very risky for IE/Windows users who don't run noscript, adblock & better privacy, but I've never heard of a Linux box being compromised by one of these sites?

**Artemis3** · September 4th, 2011

I have been using Noscript for years, it doesn't bother me at all to whitelist trusted sites, something which is rarely needed once you finish your main ones.

It all started when i discovered javascript code to nullify Adblock Plus. How dare they? Noscript put a definitive end to it, and then i also discovered how much fast the browser performs without executing random nonsensical code all over the place. So yes, it's about performance more than paranoia to me.

Noscript also happens to block flash and some other things you can temporarily enable by clicking on top of them, ala flashblock. This means sites filled with flash, java and friends load really fast, and you can even execute the only important flash element, and ignore the junk.

This forum works perfectly fine without yahooapis.com, and i don't even know what thats site for. I only have ubuntuforums whitelisted, because IIRC something is broken in the standard reply box and the "line feed/carriage returns" don't get posted.

Paranoid people can also install a cookie (site) whitelister, i use Cookiemonster. Also, there is a Referrer whitelister (very useful to detect hotlinking deflectors) called RefControl.

These tools are also excellent for developing. Are your sites still usable without scripts, flash, etc? You might want to make sure the site remains accessible and functional, people with disabilities using helper software will certainly appreciate it.

In addition to Ads, flash, scripts, java etc there is another performance killer for the web i have come to notice more recently. Trackers. Yes, it's getting out of hand. Maybe they just use Google Analytics here, but i have found many sites using 7 or more. Worse, google recommends putting their code FIRST, before the rest of the page loads. This means extra delay, waiting for a third party server to do its stuff, making you waste even more time for a page to load... The solution: Ghostery, configured so it doesn't alert or anything, it can silently do its job just like adblock.

The current Noscript also can block webgl, automatic <noscript> redirects (sometimes used to defeat your anti ad tools) XSS and some other things. I am aware of similar, but vastly lacking in features plugins for Chrome (due to Chrome's more restricted environment for addons).

It is a battle for control. In the same way a site can NOT dictate that i have to hurt my eyes using black text on white background (see Stylish), or too big/too small font, i can also decide if they can show me content and waste my time and bandwidth with things unrelated to the document I'm actually reading.

This is not TV or printed media. Accessibility comes first, eye candy second.

You will be surprised of the vast amount of sites which work perfectly fine without any whitelisting, i could name Wikipedia for example. Even things like gmail have fallback options using pure html, and its your sole choice to enable optional scripting for easier usage. This also ensures compatibility with a plethora of devices which might just not work otherwise (including accessibility aids).

I must concur with the poor choice of words for the thread op, and the poll itself, i started thinking in algebraic terms and had to stop and see what was really going on here. Perhaps a non native english speaker doing literal word by word language translation?