3 ms·

Unless you disable JavaScript it would be to hard to stop the fingerprinting. If you shut off JavaScript a lot of sites won't work

inetknght 10y ago
From firsthand experience, I've learned to live with broken websites and often end up _not_ using sites that rely heavily on javascript, and especially not sites that rely heavily on loading javascript from third-party domains. The worst offenders, by far, are news sites. Coming close are just about every startup that has a heavy focus on fancy web front end.
logfromblammo 10y ago
Since many of those sites "work" by tracking you and relentlessly analyzing your behavior, I'd say that's a good thing. If a site shows me nothing but a blank screen when I load it up with scripts disabled, I am very reluctant to enable 14 different script domains just to see a paged article, or worse, a slide show. Allowing scripts to run only from whitelisted domains makes the web a better place.
pdkl95 10y ago
If a website doesn't have at least minimal functionality (i.e. the article can be read), then the website is broken. Fortunately, most websites that aren't complete trash work ok without JS. Very few websites need to have their JS whitelisted, which only has to be done on the first visit. Running unknown programs from random hosts on the internet - even in a limited environment - is a bad idea. Fortunately, documents (including images, audio, video, etc.) do not need Turing completeness. A lot of people will react strongly against the idea of not using JS, often because their income depends on tricking users into running spyware/malware,
- romaniv 10y ago
  >If a website doesn't have at least minimal functionality, then the website is broken. Curious. This goes completely against the sentiment in all of the discussions around modern SPA frameworks and JS libraries I've seen on this very website. It seems that for most fronted devs today JS is a natural prerequisite for using their product. Progressive enhancement is often sneered at[1] as impractical and unnecessary. This leads me to believe that there are two mostly disjoint groups of people commenting on this issue in different threads. --- [1] - Good example: https://www.viget.com/articles/the-case-against-progressive-enhancements-flimsy-moral-foundation https://www.viget.com/articles/the-case-against-progressive-...
  - pikzen 10y ago
    Their landing page doesn't work without Javascript. It doesn't load images without Javascript. And they're advocating for no PE. I don't know which world JS devs are dragging us in, but it certainly looks shitty and ignoring every single thing software engineers have learned in the past thirty years.
zeveb 10y ago
> If you shut off JavaScript a lot of sites won't work If a site requires JavaScript, it already doesn't work. If a site requires JavaScript, its owner clearly doesn't care about either your security or your privacy. Why use a site which requires JavaScript? JavaScript delenda est.

inetknght 10y ago

From firsthand experience, I've learned to live with broken websites and often end up _not_ using sites that rely heavily on javascript, and especially not sites that rely heavily on loading javascript from third-party domains. The worst offenders, by far, are news sites. Coming close are just about every startup that has a heavy focus on fancy web front end.

logfromblammo 10y ago

Since many of those sites "work" by tracking you and relentlessly analyzing your behavior, I'd say that's a good thing. If a site shows me nothing but a blank screen when I load it up with scripts disabled, I am very reluctant to enable 14 different script domains just to see a paged article, or worse, a slide show. Allowing scripts to run only from whitelisted domains makes the web a better place.

pdkl95 10y ago

If a website doesn't have at least minimal functionality (i.e. the article can be read), then the website is broken. Fortunately, most websites that aren't complete trash work ok without JS. Very few websites need to have their JS whitelisted, which only has to be done on the first visit. Running unknown programs from random hosts on the internet - even in a limited environment - is a bad idea. Fortunately, documents (including images, audio, video, etc.) do not need Turing completeness. A lot of people will react strongly against the idea of not using JS, often because their income depends on tricking users into running spyware/malware,

romaniv 10y ago
>If a website doesn't have at least minimal functionality, then the website is broken. Curious. This goes completely against the sentiment in all of the discussions around modern SPA frameworks and JS libraries I've seen on this very website. It seems that for most fronted devs today JS is a natural prerequisite for using their product. Progressive enhancement is often sneered at[1] as impractical and unnecessary. This leads me to believe that there are two mostly disjoint groups of people commenting on this issue in different threads. --- [1] - Good example: https://www.viget.com/articles/the-case-against-progressive-enhancements-flimsy-moral-foundation https://www.viget.com/articles/the-case-against-progressive-...
- pikzen 10y ago
  Their landing page doesn't work without Javascript. It doesn't load images without Javascript. And they're advocating for no PE. I don't know which world JS devs are dragging us in, but it certainly looks shitty and ignoring every single thing software engineers have learned in the past thirty years.

zeveb 10y ago

> If you shut off JavaScript a lot of sites won't work If a site requires JavaScript, it already doesn't work. If a site requires JavaScript, its owner clearly doesn't care about either your security or your privacy. Why use a site which requires JavaScript? JavaScript delenda est.