3 ms·
> At this point those are given prerequisites. No, no they are not. JavaScript is a privacy-destroying technology. It is a security-impairing technology. It
by wtbob 10y ago
> At this point those are given prerequisites.
No, no they are not. JavaScript is a privacy-destroying technology. It is a security-impairing technology. It is also pretty neat: it can be great in self-hosted applications, and it can add nice functionality when users trust a site.
Requiring it is akin to a restaurant requiring customers to deposit their wallets at the bar; it's akin to the police requiring the ability to read one's mind (with the promise that they won't abuse the privilege). Requiring JavaScript in order to display text and images is like the guys at the carwash requiring you to give them your house key as well as your car keys.
- coldtea 10y ago>No, no they are not. JavaScript is a privacy-destroying technology. It is a security-impairing technology. It is also pretty neat: it can be great in self-hosted applications, and it can add nice functionality when users trust a site. First, whether it's "privacy-destroying" or "security-impairing" is orthogonal to it being a prerequisite for the modern web. Especially since 99% of the people don't see it that way in the first place. Second, they (government etc) can read all your mails, tap the backbones, and store your phone-calls, even track your moves through cell towers, and know everyone you spoke with. The websites you visit is probably the least interesting information about you. >Requiring it is akin to a restaurant requiring customers to deposit their wallets at the bar; it's akin to the police requiring the ability to read one's mind It's akin to this argument going nowhere because of hyperbole...