On a more serious note, I sort of agree with UnoriginalGuy's POV. He's right in the sense that you are "breaking the internet" and then asking them to help you fix it (great analogy, I thought). I don't agree with his idea that NoScript "rolls the web back to pre-1997 levels" though. I think NoScript makes things so much safer that anyone who doesn't run it by default is taking a huge security risk when they visit unknown/new sites. That said, it seems silly/over-reacting to create a tattle-tale post here.
yes i appreciate the POV, in that JavaScript is widely accepted now and it's curmudgeonly to assume otherwise. NoScript's design takes this into account, for those who are willing to white list domains.
That said, the idea that just because x% of people are happy to run arbitrary code from an arbitrary number of 3rd and 4th party domains, and that this is an acceptable or sustainable situation, I question.
It is ridiculous for a mainstream publisher like Gawker to run code from a laundry list of 3rd party domains, which are probably dynamically loading even more (that's what's usually going on when fiddling with individual domains still doesn't work). If all this code is trustworthy, they really can't download it and serve it to us directly? Of course, they have no ability to verify that it is safe when pointing to so many code bases.
It is also ridiculous that they cannot answer the question of which third party domains are needed to support comments on their system. This is how you take your more security conscious users and say "we don't care about you." With all the things that people will seemingly do to bump usage of their site a few percent, a sane JavaScript policy seemingly isn't always one of them.
Gawker can do what ever they want of course. And I can do what ever I want, which includes pointing out how silly it is!
.
.
.
.
.
haha - couldn't help myself :D
On a more serious note, I sort of agree with UnoriginalGuy's POV. He's right in the sense that you are "breaking the internet" and then asking them to help you fix it (great analogy, I thought). I don't agree with his idea that NoScript "rolls the web back to pre-1997 levels" though. I think NoScript makes things so much safer that anyone who doesn't run it by default is taking a huge security risk when they visit unknown/new sites. That said, it seems silly/over-reacting to create a tattle-tale post here.