←back to thread

263 points amarder | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
userbinator ◴[] No.45077766[source]
If the first item isn't "whitelist JS", you're doing it wrong. So many problems arise from letting any site run programs on your computer that it's best to reserve the privilege to the most trusted of sites.
replies(3): >>45077846 #>>45078131 #>>45083362 #
stusmall ◴[] No.45077846[source]
Meanwhile if I see that I just move on. It just isn't practical to have a workable browser with JS whitelisting for the general case. I doubt people who do this actually do any kind of thoughtful review before hitting "accept". It just adds manual toil with limited benefit.

If they are doing meaningful review, I question how much they actually get done in life.

replies(4): >>45078402 #>>45078915 #>>45079253 #>>45080838 #
1. userbinator ◴[] No.45079253[source]
It's quite telling that even the mobile version of Chrome, well known for being the most user-hostile browser, has the option to whitelist or blacklist JS and various other features like location access.

Chrome didn't have anything other than a global JS on/off at first, so they clearly added this feature later.