If you have to ask what benefits NoScript can provide, you don't need it / it's too complicated for your needs.

See the developers website for a description of what it is. https://noscript.net/

I'm not sure about the protection provided by your iMac, but that may be talking about Safari and not Firefox. Firefox works independently of Safari.

NoScript adds an "S" button to the toolbar, which I'm sure you've seen with a circle-slash icon over it. When you visit a new site, NoScript will block all the sources of scripts you haven't trusted before. If the site looks odd or doesn't work correctly, you probably need to allow some of those script sources. Depending on the site, the list can be very long. In that case, I generally start at the top and approve others as needed, skipping over the ones that seem to be just ad servers. This could take 3 seconds or it could take 30 seconds depending on the site, but then it's done, it's saved, and if I come back, usually I don't need to check again.

If you aren't a bit paranoid about website security and a bit patient about training NoScript, it might not be a good match, but I suggest trying it for a few hours the way I described and see whether the lack of unnecessary ads, sharing buttons, and other, um, crap, doesn't make your browsing faster and less cluttered.

By the way, some users apparently got an unofficial bundle of Firefox with NoScript already included. If you installed one of those, you might your history on where that came from. Normally Firefox doesn't include ANY extensions when you install it (although it may find some on your system, such as security software toolbars).

My apologies, 'the-edmeister' and 'jscher2000', for not responding earlier.

For what it's worth, I hadn't intended querying the usefulness of NoScript, though omitting to mention that I also had McAfee Total Protection didn't make that too clear.

I was just wondering (in my computer illiterate way) why more of what NoScript does couldn't be automated. I mean, it even asks me whether or not I want to allow Google. If Google, Bling, etc, can work as autonomously as they do, couldn't some clever programmer teach NoScript to do the same?

I can see there might have to be some fine-tuning stage, requiring my personal choice regarding the potential risks of accessing a 'dodgy' site. But not at the level of suspecting Google or my bank, surely.

Does this make sense?

No Script has its own support forums here: http://forums.informaction.com/viewforum.php?f=3 Questions about "automating" its use would be best answered there.

Overall, I have used NoScript almost since it was first released and wouldn't use Firefox without it. That said, it's a "pain" to get set up for my most frequently used websites these days. Consequently, I use the "global allow" setting - which is not recommended. Most websites now use javascript to do the simplest things and don't work at all when using NoScript as it was intended to be used originally. I'm no longer willing to invest the time needed today to do a per site setup of what is allowed and what remains blocked.

Overall, there are too many features in NoScript beyond simply blocking javascript for me not to use it - the Advanced tab in Options with cross-site scripting, ABE, & ClearClick protection are the features I find valuable now-a-days.

Thanks very much 'the-edmeister' for your second thoughts; I will take a good look at the IA forum.