That's the kind of thing you don't want to be "in-housed" because then you end up being stuck with in-house politics. Install your choice of ad-blocking extension and be thankful you have a choice.
It's kind of like releasing an operating system without the concept of user accounts (everything running as root) in 2022 and defending the choice by saying that you can install third-party extensions.
No, in 2022 a browser without uBlock Origin or equivalent enabled by default should be considered defective and a security vulnerability.
That would be an accurate metaphor if ads had root privileges on the browser, but web pages are sandboxed - so no, everything is not being run as root.
Ads have root privileges as far as your online fingerprint is concerned.
(not to mention that running untrusted code could expose you to browser exploits so running untrusted code for no benefit is a liability when there are permissively-licensed tools such as uBlock and its filter lists to detect & block them)
NoScript is different; I believe it allows you to choose whether to run scripts. Tracking can be done in different ways with simple pixel tags which I'm not sure whether NoScript would block. It also presumably requires manual configuration & trial and error to determine which scripts to allow.
uBlock Origin uses Adblock-style lists maintained by the community to determine what to block, and "what" can include scripts, CSS selectors or entire URLs regardless of how they're requested (even <img/> pixel tags can be blocked, and similarly you can load malicious JS but "defang" it by blocking the endpoints it uses to phone home so other JS on the page that expects the malicious JS to be there will still work).
I suggest you install uBlock Origin - whether you keep NoScript is up to you; it may provide greater protection (or simply performance by not running scripts you don't need) if you're happy with the management overhead of manually choosing which scripts to execute.
