3 ms·
There is a difference though. I can selectively turn things on / off. If I have to turn on >5 websites to see the content it suddenly has less value and I shru
by SixSigma 10y ago
There is a difference though. I can selectively turn things on / off.
If I have to turn on >5 websites to see the content it suddenly has less value and I shrug and close
- truth_sentinell 10y agoI really can't understand the people that browse the internet without JS. Like what's the point? JS is part of the web, deal with it.
- tyfon 10y agoI am dealing with it by not visiting homepages that rely on JavaScript. The point is I do not want a bunch of insecure code running on my computer just to read some text, which is what I usually do in a browser.
- truth_sentinell 10y agoMaybe all you visit is blogs. But there are lots of websites that rely on JS in order to express their intentions. It's like watching a movie with the mute on because the english accents bothers you -and without the possibility of subtitles-.
- xkcd-sucks 10y agoIt seems that for most sites that rely on JS, about ten percent is actually necessary and the remainder is useless advertising/tracking/analytics/fonts/social media buttons. NoScript, uMatrix etc. are really helpful here.
- anc84 10y agoBoring old argument again and again. 99% of the distraction, tracking, annoyance of the modern web are due to JS. Blocking it will not "break most sites", you can usually read just fine. Selectively allowing JS per domain works great. Try it, you might be surprised and not talk down to us anymore.
- CaptSpify 10y agoOne could just as easily say "I'm not going to run JS unless I want to. Deal with it"