It basically detects non-free JavaScript on websites you visit. It also allows you to whitelist certain JS if you feel like you trust it or if you really need it to run.
From what I can tell, this Firefox add-on (noscript) operates in a similar way and has 1.5 million users, so it’s a needed feature people are looking for. So why not have LibreJS by default on PureBrowser? Are there some severe downsides of it that we can not find work-arounds for?
I am myself a heavy user of uMatrix. I would still not recommend integrating it in Purebrowser by default. I think the same applies to LibreJS: it would break most website which use javascript. Any website with a lot of traffic uses either a minifier or Cloudfront to handle the load, which would probably be blocked by LibreJS.
Although truly committed to privacy, I think it is important to keep it usable by average Joe. Advanced privacy enthusiast can then do some research and use extensions such as LibreJS or uMatrix. The gap is simply too high for the average user in my opnion
@anon10067017, I have used LibreJS. It breaks nearly every website in existence. It even blocks javascript on FSF.org. I really wish I could use it, but I prefer NoScript. NoScript blocks all JavaScript and you can whitelist websites you like. LibreJS tries to only block nonfree Javascript, but is EXTREMELY slow.
Hey @thib@blendergeek
thank you for your inputs, even if they’re sad ones but I can totally understand it.
Though for educational purposes, we could have it installed but not activated. A lot of people don’t know that such a thing even exists (me included, until recently). People will start questioning it, do research and stuff and if they’ll like the consequences, they’ll try it out. To me it can be any of them (NoScript, uMatrix or LibreJS) or maybe something else.
but I can totally understand it.