General policies
* Should not break useful websites or apps
* Blocks tracking servers
* Blocks advertising servers
* Blocks analytics servers
* Blocks fake websites
* Blocks malware servers
* Blocks webminers
A.
"useful websites or apps"B.
"tracking servers"
"advertising servers"
"analytics servers"
"fake websites"
"malware servers"
"webminers" If B is larger than A, then a whitelist for A is easier to maintain than a blocklist for B. Following this logic is not for everybody, much depends on the user's particular web/app usage, but it has worked for me. It forces an otherwise naive user like me to get to know the "useful websites" and "apps" better, e.g., to be aware of the domains and any third party resources they are using. Some are much more dynamic than others. Thus, some may require constant attention where others may only require an upfront, one-time sunk cost of my time. Whereas reading through continually updated "blocklists", lists of servers that purportedly have nothing to offer me, is not something I want to be forced to spend time doing. How can we know that the people making the blocklists are not in collusion with the people behind the servers listed in B. At some point, we will be forced to look at what is listed in the blocklists. I would rather spend that time on a personalised whitelist. |
One personal annoyance is sites that use things like CloudFront and regularly change the host without assigning a vanity CNAME so you cannot simply whitelist *.cdn.example.com.