noscript VS anti-adblock-killer

Good or bad depends on the intentions of the website you're visiting, and unfortunately also of the many 3rd party script sources it includes. Users should have a chance to decide which sites they trust to run JavaScript and which they do not, and this is the reason why 18 years ago I've created NoScript, and why it is still there and shipped by default inside the Tor Browser.

Use a different name, password, and email if you can. Keep an adblocker and noscript handy. Don't accept cookies from new sites. Maybe even use the TOR browser for better anonymity and safety while you're giving these new platforms a test run.

What is it?

I do (with the NoScript browser extension: https://noscript.net/). The main reason is to reduce my attack surface. A secondary benefit is it eliminates most ads and other annoying distractions.

I'll give an example of NoScript which is a great project that you should be using. Most people download the extension directly though their browser. Firefox shows 317,244 active users and Chromium shows 100,000+ users. Some people know of the website. Less people know of the GitHub project the NoScript Common Library (nscl). NoScript has 645 stars and nscl has 15 stars. 417,244+ active users and only 660 stars. If you use the project and you have a GitHub account, give it some love with some stars!

Here: https://noscript.net/

So, for most of the history of advertising, you didn't have a choice. Advertising was a part of someone else's property that would ambush[0] you before you could even ignore it. Internet advertising is an outlier in that it happens on your property. You ask for a web page, the web site sends back the page with a bunch of JavaScript that tries to run an ad auction on your computer, then your browser extensions delete the JavaScript, then another bit of JavaScript sent by the web site detects this and deletes the content, except no because your extension also defeated the antitamper script, except no because the web site legally threatened your ad blocker with billions of dollars in litigation for breaking the "don't rip DVDs" law.

I'm not kidding about that, BTW[1][2][3]. There is a silent and ongoing effort by everyone - including ad companies - to appropriate your physical property with their intellectual property[4]. You see, on the totem pole of capitalist legitimacy, physical ownership is actually really weak. There's all sorts of government-granted monopolies that can be traded like property[5], but let you bulldoze lesser ownership over physical objects. You might own your computer, but I own the content, so I own your computer for as long as my content is somewhere on it.

Talking about fundamental rights is interesting. Right now, at least in the US, people have a fundamental right to advertise - it's called the 1st Amendment. We can't even have functional campaign contribution laws because SCOTUS demands that billionaires have a god-given right to spend their billions shouting over everyone else in campaign ads. Several other fundamental rights mean you have the right to ignore shouty ads, but you don't have the right to shut the advertisers up. Likewise, the right to refuse ad exposure online is implied by the fact that the website runs on your computer. But other rights - such as the right to control copies of your speech - can negate that same implication.

Anyway, this is why I think we should bring back the Boston Strangler[6]. Thank you for coming to my TED Talk.

[0] This is separate from the concept of "ambush marketing" where you try to ride another marketer's coat tails as close as possible without violating trademark law, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambush_marketing

[1] https://digiday.com/media/adblock-plus-accuses-axel-springer...

[2] https://torrentfreak.com/dmca-used-to-remove-ad-server-url-f...

[3] Here's a longer GitHub issue/flamewar full of people debating whether or not you can apply DMCA 1201 equivalents to ad blockers: https://github.com/reek/anti-adblock-killer/issues/1034

[4] Shut up Stallman, you know what it really means. - Not Cory Doctorow

[5] I'm afraid to call them property because if I do that means the Takings clause applies and we can't ever roll back the life+70 insanity that Berne, Germany, and the EU foisted on us.

[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Valenti#Valenti_on_new_te...

On Windows, I use Anti-Adblock Killer + uBlock Origin + SponsorBlock + YouTube Enhancer (which adds many features such as granular custom speed up to 14x).

Try Anti-Adblock Killer.

Should also be using Anti Adblock Killer

Link