6 ms·
It's too late. For many years (decades?) I got downvoted (here and on Reddit) for mentioning that I used NoScript. I even disabled JavaScript completely on Net
by stesch 9y ago
It's too late.
For many years (decades?) I got downvoted (here and on Reddit) for mentioning that I used NoScript. I even disabled JavaScript completely on Netscape Navigator.
It was in the context of sites that were unusable without JavaScript or security problems that only affected JavaScript in browsers.
- cm2187 9y agoIt’s too late until we are facing an unfixable hardware flaw that we will be stuck with for the next 10 years (until users fully retire the current CPU architecture).
- madez 9y agoIt's too late for what? Sure, Google and other advertising companies will never stop pushing technologies that are favourable for them, but we don't have to use them. We can always build open and free alternatives.
- TeMPOraL 9y agoIt doesn't matter. The playing field itself allows for shitty practices, and people/companies engaging in those shitty practices get more profit than those who refrain from it. As long as shitty practices are supported by the browsers general population uses, nothing will really change.
- madez 9y agoMoney doesn't win every fight. And not every fight is about money. For example, Mozilla is a non-profit organization. It's not about making everybody stop doing the wrong thing, it's about doing the right thing. Having one modern browser ditch JavaScript would already be a huge win, and people who care could use it. If Mozilla pushed the open web, it would already be much better, because all those open projects could use that. Not everybody uses Googles or Facebooks websites.
- TeMPOraL 9y agoThis fight is about money, because you're going against the entire industry, asking some players in it to self-sacrifice. > Having one modern browser ditch JavaScript would already be a huge win, and people who care could use it. For a short while, maybe, but as people making websites don't care about minority browsers, the amount of important websites you wouldn't be able to use through that browser would only grow, until the point that browser becomes useless. People making money off user-hostile activities won't voluntarily stop making money off user-hostile activities.
- madez 9y agoIt is not about making everybody stop doing user-hostile activites. That is my main point here, it is not about that. There are people who have a website and don't want to monetize the visitors. I want a standardized web for them. Not everbody has to belong to that group for it to have merit. I don't expect Microsoft or Google to stop making their online office stuff. Honestly, I couldn't care less what they are doing. I want solutions for those that serve the users, and nobody else.
- TeMPOraL 9y agoIf that - just that - is your scope, then count me in. I'd love to have a "standard web" that's entirely focused on providing visitors information in an efficient manner. And by efficient I mean not fighting attempts at providing better UIs or aggregating information through machine methods.
- krapp 9y agoNot everyone who uses javascript does so to monetize visitors. It's just a scripting language, it can be used for anything - and any user or publisher who doesn't want to use it already has the freedom not to.
- madez 9y agoI agree, and I think it is a pity that JavaScript is necessary for a lot of useful functionality which could be standardized to be made available without JavaScript, so people who care can browser the web and their sites in a browser that doesn't support JavaScript and still have a rich experience.