> Whitelisting while keeping every website moderately functional seems impractical for the Mozilla team, which means the burden of choosing what to allow falls on the end user.
I've used NoScript for a long time, and the hardest thing is knowing what the domain is doing so I can decide what to allow. It's hard to tell the difference between opaquely named ad-networks and opaquely named media player providers.
It would be nice if someone could start compiling a database that
1. groups together the domains used by different sites and services (e.g. website.com and website-images.com) and
2. includes a brief description of their purpose or business.
So, doubleclick.com and doubleclick.net could be grouped and easily identified as an ad network, google tag manager is a tracker, etc.
I doubt such a list would take any more effort to maintain than the current ad-blocker lists.
I've used NoScript for a long time, and the hardest thing is knowing what the domain is doing so I can decide what to allow. It's hard to tell the difference between opaquely named ad-networks and opaquely named media player providers.
It would be nice if someone could start compiling a database that
1. groups together the domains used by different sites and services (e.g. website.com and website-images.com) and
2. includes a brief description of their purpose or business.
So, doubleclick.com and doubleclick.net could be grouped and easily identified as an ad network, google tag manager is a tracker, etc.
I doubt such a list would take any more effort to maintain than the current ad-blocker lists.