
NoScript extension officially released for Google Chrome - el_duderino
https://www.zdnet.com/article/noscript-extension-officially-released-for-google-chrome/
======
jgowdy
I wouldn't get too excited. The way the Chromium project responded to concerns
over the API change leads me to believe that Chromium has a lot more
restricting... I mean "redesigning" of extension APIs in the pipeline
regardless of what users want. Think about it.

1) Propose API changes with blatantly obvious impacts on some of the most
popular extensions. Include no explanation of how these extensions can
_rationally_ adapt to these new APIs and provide the same or _adequately_
similar functionality.

2) Don't bring any timing data to justify the performance claim that ad
blockers are taking an irrational amount of time implementing their content
filtering. When others run these same tests they find no performance issues.

3) Characterize any strong reactions to such a suggested change as
inappropriate. Feign surprise and dismay at the fact that such reckless API
changes, which would drastically change the status quo on the web, are
invoking.

4) Condemn those who didn't react the way you expected when you threatened to
vastly change their web browsing experience for the worse. This helps diminish
user input in the future, by tying everyone with honest opinions to those who
express their opinions in an inappropriate or unprofessional way.

5) Act insulted when people point out that your employer, who is in control of
the situation, happens to financially benefit from the changes.

The above experience was so distastefully handled across the board, I really
think it justifies a unified and community supported "ungoogled-chromium"
project without any of their trademarks in the name. That way we the users of
the web can determine our relationship with the browser. It's the user's
agent, not the browser vendor's agent.

But most importantly, use Firefox with containers and uBlock Origin.

PS. Despite the above, kudos on the port of NoScript. Never give up, never
surrender.

~~~
kevin_b_er
I've seen this pattern of behavior as well. It makes me seriously wonder if
the Google engineers working on Chromium/Chrome are being corrupted by the
advertising desires of Google's management.

Their behavior is much of a politician trying to do something while trying to
hide their end-goal.

~~~
jgowdy
I prefer to direct my thoughts towards the project as a whole and not fixed on
any particular person or persons within the project. I have a very limited
view of the project, certainly not enough to question anyone's motives
specifically.

------
_coveredInBees
I personally find umatrix far superior to noscript. I also dislike the fact
that noscript keeps forcing "update" popup tabs about their latest updates,
which have zero utility except to serve obfuscated ads on the author's domain
that bypass your adblocker and noscript. That has always rubbed me the wrong
way, and a couple of years back I switched away from no-script entirely and
haven't really looked back.

Edit - This is a good example of what I'm talking about:
[https://i.imgur.com/Lwr3xhY.png](https://i.imgur.com/Lwr3xhY.png)

~~~
vbezhenar
How can I use umatrix to enable some of JS? So like browsing the web with JS
off by default and enable it for selected websites.

~~~
_coveredInBees
There are a couple of options. You can either click the big power button style
icon in umatrix on any website that allows all js on that website. This will
also allow all trackers, etc, but is handy in a pinch when doing something
like making a purchase on a new website where you don't want to have something
go wrong mid-way because some js was blocked from a critical domain.

You also have more fine-grained control where the matrix interface allows you
to white-list specific domains (and you can select whether you want
JS/Frame/cookies, etc per domain). If you save your white-listing, that will
always be remembered even across other websites. So for example, if I were to
white-list twitter.com for js/frame and save that, then if I visit another
site that embeds links to twitter widgets, those will work because you've
already white-listed twitter.

Umatrix does take a bit of effort initially when you start with a blank slate,
but over time, it works fairly well and I feel a lot more comfortable browsing
the web with it.

~~~
vbezhenar
Thanks. I would rather break those twitter scripts as I'm completely not
interested with that kind of functionality :) I hope, web today is not very
broken without JS, I used to use noscript with Firefox years ago and it worked
good enough for me.

------
snaky
No Chrome extensions on mobile still.

~~~
dx034
I hope it'll remain like this for a while. Adblocker on mobile was the only
reason I was able to convince people to switch from Chrome to Firefox on
Android. If Chrome adds extensions, their dominance on mobile will only
increase.

~~~
ToFab123
Maybe Microsoft could add support for chrome extensions in mobile edge like
they have done on edge desktop

~~~
anewhnaccount2
I haven't tried it myself, but I recall reading that Yandex Browser is a Blink
based browser which supports extensions on mobile.

------
pivic
A noob question: is NoScript needed when running Brave?

~~~
pedrocx486
Brave has an Block Scripts option in its shields settings, if you have it on,
then no.

~~~
pivic
Thanks!

