rodolfo comments on Why you shouldn't use Brave Browser

[–] rodolfo@lemmy.world 7 points 3 years ago (2 children)

nope not quite as effective in my opinion. also I use them both, ah ah ah. Anyways, Brave founder seems to be Javascript creator, so... NoScript seems more adequate as a joke.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] AphoticDev@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

NoScript blocks scripts per domain. uBlock Origin can block scripts per domain, per site, and per script. So you can block any script from Google across the whole web, except on their own sites, rendering their tracking inoperable. So in this, I'm sorry to say but your opinion is objectively wrong. uBlock has more functionality and finer control than is possible with NoScript. In fact, uBlock is the most powerful security plugin available for browsers. Turn on script blocking and advanced mode, and you don't need anything else to protect your browser.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] rodolfo@lemmy.world 0 points 3 years ago

I'm in web dev, not quite the front end guy I have to admit. Blocking a whole site it's more effective. full stop. site isn't working? not sure I'm losing anything. furthermore I can whitelist my localhost during dev allowing google/facebook/twitter/etc. stuff for example, and remove it anywhere else. add that I browse only in private. also as I said, i have ublock enabled side by side with noscript: I need to fine tune something? well I have my options, you know. so no, my opinion is not objectively wrong. it's just that we have radically different needs: you want to have the (most legitimate) chance to spend time filtering script by script, I need to be quick around things. It's my way better than yours? prolly not, but that vm helps me a lot. peace.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent