Yes they are. I always wonder why in the hell I turned off my filter for them.
1 Like
I actually meant to just refer to this specific whitelist request on the gawker/gizmodo sites, not whitelist demands in general. Edited my post to (hopefully) be more clear. From what Iāve seen, this particular one doesnāt seem to be very intrusive so far, though that could always change.
On my main system, I generally allow everything in noscript and then just specifically mark sites to block scripts on, which keeps things mostly hassle-free (occasionally YouTube videos will cause an XSS alert, but I donāt run into that often).
Then, on another system where Iām occasionally forced to load dubious or known threat sites, I keep it set the other way around and whitelist whatās known to be good. Itās not a foolproof method to block crap and does occasionally cause issues, but as part of a layered defense itās definitely useful.
1 Like
Me too! And for Korean websites, which are traditionally pop-up, auto-play hellscapes. Even government sites.
1 Like
Yeah. Kinjaās acting weird and inconsistent as of late. 'tis a shame. If there were an option to subscribe, like itās spinoff site has_ that would be really nice. Oh well. For now my little scraper system works (Calibre) and doesnāt have ads.
1 Like
Am I the only one who read that message as āTurning off your adblocker allows us to eat people ā¦ā?
Personally I find that thereās a ratio of the value of the content vs. difficulty to get to it, and when sites start doing things like that, it usually pushes the ratio out far enough that I just skip it.
4 Likes