"This site tries to run Javascript. Normal news sites shouldn't need this.
[Allow this session] [Allow 5 seconds] [Deny]"
I'd be particularily interested in the second option since it would allow us to use sites that depend on JS for content while they roll back the craziness that is depending on scripting to show static content.
While I'm at it:
I want badges!
- Certified Javascript free page (Platinum)
- Certified progressive site, no dependence on Javascript, no long running background scripts (Gold)
- etc
Obviously I'm exaggerating the implementations here but I'm serious about the idea.
(And yes, I earn good money on frontend work, I just think it often makes solutions worse.)
I have no-script on by default, and these days I need be convinced there's a REALLY good reason to temporarily whitelist a site.
Sure, a lot of the web is now either a blank page (or "you need to enable js to run this app") but on the positive side, I'm a lot more productive as I just close those sites and move on!
You can manually pause and resume js by opening up the debugger and hitting pause. The code exists it just needs to be exposed to the UI.
Would it be that after 5s the user couldn't interact with elements on the page like that (e.g. if they open an image, and wait a few seconds, they then couldn't close it because the 'x' onclick handler wouldn't run), or would each handler run by a user action (like an onclick) have 5 seconds to run?
The simplest way to do it would just be to pause js 5 (or maybe 15) seconds after page load, and have a button beside the url to resume/repause js.
The devtools keep working with js paused though, so it should be possible to do something like have a onclick handler that resumes and starts a timer to repause the js.
Ideally I think I'd like click's to resume js for a few seconds unless they are clicking on a link (with a href that leads to another page). I'm not certain that would be technically easy but it seems likely it would be.
To be real, though, somewhere close to 0% (rounded to the third decimal place) of users would agree to grossly inefficient cryptomining in the browser. As a web funding model it is terrible and is almost always akin to malware. It certainly costs the user much more in electricity costs than it will ever benefit web publishers.
Mozilla? Optional protection? Don't trigger my memories.
They also made it optional to block unsigned extensions, which you could turn off if you wanted to tweak one to fix a bug because it wasn't being maintained fast enough.
Like, if you believed in the whole Open Source/tinkering philosophy, or something, which Mozilla may or may not care about.
Then, they started disallowing it in 2016.
And they turned off key remapping too.
For one thing it's probably not a good idea on battery-powered devices, so it's only useful for monetizing desktop browsing. It also means that the money you make out of it depends on the average power your "customer" has available to mine.
Beyond that since mining is a zero-sum game it means that the more people opt for this model, the less money they individually make. Maybe today you make on average 0.001cent per minute and per user and a year from now you make a tenth of that. You have absolutely zero control on it since it's merely a factor of the total hashrate and the cryptocurrency's value.
I have a hard time imagining how this could become mainstream. Tipping using cryptocurrency microtransaction seems more promising but even that is far from a solved problem. I'd rather directly send $.002 to the website rather than waste $.01 of electricity for the website to make $.001 out of it.