"Use Javascript to enhance webpages, not degrade them." That sounds like something the user could do, client-side. Why do users have to blindly accept and exe

"Use Javascript to enhance webpages, not degrade them." That sounds like something the user could do, client-side. Why do users have to blindly accept and execute Javascript payloads from every website? What if the website said, "Hey I have some cool Javascript that can really enhance the content of this website. Do you want to download it to memory and run it on your computer, in your browser?" The user might respond, "Sure, run it!" or "No thanks, I have some Javascript I wrote myself to enhance website content and would prefer to use that instead. Just give me the content." I recall in the 1990's browser pop-ups where users were asked if they wanted to (download and) run Java applets. I believe there are still some websites out there that use Java applets. Not sure how browsers deal with this today. Doubtful that web developers will listen to your plea although it is admirable. What they care about directly is browsers. The way to send them a message as a user is in the choice of what browser you use, what shows up in their logs. Using a browser that enables all Javascript by default signifies your agreement with what they are doing today. Using a browser that does not read Javascript sends a message that you can do without it. If the logs started showing a majority of user agents were browsers that do not read Javascript how would web developers respond? User Agent header is still surprisingly influential.