3 ms·

There's nothing stopping you from browsing that way if it's what you want. Install uMatrix, uBlock, and a couple other extensions, and you can lock down pages

There's nothing stopping you from browsing that way if it's what you want. Install uMatrix, uBlock, and a couple other extensions, and you can lock down pages as much as you want. You can even take it a step further and use an older browser that doesn't support the modern features you're complaining about. Unfortunately, what you can't do is force everybody else to participate. HTML3 still works great in modern browsers, but the people making the sites want to use modern features.

anoncake 8y ago
> There's nothing stopping you from browsing that way if it's what you want. There is. Pages that don't work without Javascript.
- jlarocco 8y ago
  That was my point. You can control your browser, but you can't control what other people offer up.
  - anoncake 8y ago
    And that's what's stopping them from browsing a sane web.
    - jlarocco 8y ago
      Sorry, but nobody's twisting their arm to use those websites. Making yourself out to be a victim doesn't make it so.
      - krageon 8y ago
        Saying that you have perfect choice when half of the things you need to use use dark patterns rife with abuse does not make it true either.
    - krapp 8y ago
      >And that's what's stopping them from browsing a sane web. What, that people have too much freedom to express themselves? When did hacker culture become so... fascist?
      - anoncake 8y ago
        Heil Lee! https://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Principles.html#PLP https://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Principles.html#PLP
chriswarbo 8y ago
> You can even take it a step further and use an older browser that doesn't support the modern features you're complaining about. > HTML3 still works great in modern browsers, but the people making the sites want to use modern features. I'm not disagreeing with your point, but I disagree with words like "modern" and "older". The most "modern" browser that I'm aware of (not counting the myriad Webkit/Gecko skins) is EWW, which was first released in 2013. It's now a built-in feature of Emacs, a reasonably widely used piece of software. I think this fits the parent's desire for a readable hypertext renderer. In contrast, Google Chrome dates from 2008. If we include that in our definition of "modern" then I think we should include Netsurf (first stable release in 2007), which is a full graphical browser but might still be acceptable to the parent. If we call Firefox "modern" then I'd say it includes everything back to Netscape Navigator. If we're instead talking about maintained and up-to-date browsers then w3m, Links and lynx have all had releases in 2019. Again, those are readable hypertext systems like the parent describes. We might consider "modern" to mean implementing certain Web standards; yet that seems precisely against the nature of this discussion. Plus, many of those described above have support for e.g. HTML5, certain ECMAScript standards, etc. In contrast, "older" browsers would presumably include bloat like Internet Explorer's support for ActiveX and VBScript; and the IRC client + WYSIWYG editor + mail reader + news reader from Netscape/Mozilla/SeaMonkey. Precisely against what the parent asked for.

anoncake 8y ago

> There's nothing stopping you from browsing that way if it's what you want. There is. Pages that don't work without Javascript.

jlarocco 8y ago
That was my point. You can control your browser, but you can't control what other people offer up.
- anoncake 8y ago
  And that's what's stopping them from browsing a sane web.
  - jlarocco 8y ago
    Sorry, but nobody's twisting their arm to use those websites. Making yourself out to be a victim doesn't make it so.
    - krageon 8y ago
      Saying that you have perfect choice when half of the things you need to use use dark patterns rife with abuse does not make it true either.
  - krapp 8y ago
    >And that's what's stopping them from browsing a sane web. What, that people have too much freedom to express themselves? When did hacker culture become so... fascist?
    - anoncake 8y ago
      Heil Lee! https://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Principles.html#PLP https://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Principles.html#PLP

chriswarbo 8y ago

> You can even take it a step further and use an older browser that doesn't support the modern features you're complaining about. > HTML3 still works great in modern browsers, but the people making the sites want to use modern features. I'm not disagreeing with your point, but I disagree with words like "modern" and "older". The most "modern" browser that I'm aware of (not counting the myriad Webkit/Gecko skins) is EWW, which was first released in 2013. It's now a built-in feature of Emacs, a reasonably widely used piece of software. I think this fits the parent's desire for a readable hypertext renderer. In contrast, Google Chrome dates from 2008. If we include that in our definition of "modern" then I think we should include Netsurf (first stable release in 2007), which is a full graphical browser but might still be acceptable to the parent. If we call Firefox "modern" then I'd say it includes everything back to Netscape Navigator. If we're instead talking about maintained and up-to-date browsers then w3m, Links and lynx have all had releases in 2019. Again, those are readable hypertext systems like the parent describes. We might consider "modern" to mean implementing certain Web standards; yet that seems precisely against the nature of this discussion. Plus, many of those described above have support for e.g. HTML5, certain ECMAScript standards, etc. In contrast, "older" browsers would presumably include bloat like Internet Explorer's support for ActiveX and VBScript; and the IRC client + WYSIWYG editor + mail reader + news reader from Netscape/Mozilla/SeaMonkey. Precisely against what the parent asked for.