> (a) more efficient because you don't need to execute JS to evaluate each request This is true, but I think overly performance-focused. It doesn't feel like

> (a) more efficient because you don't need to execute JS to evaluate each request This is true, but I think overly performance-focused. It doesn't feel like that much time, so I think there's a valid complaint that it doesn't make sense to kneecap flexibility for speed. > more private because an ad/content blocker doesn't need to be given such broad permissions Sure, but this doesn't seem like the only possible solution for the people that own the browser. Why not only allow a restricted subset of JS that lacks any form of IO? Or if that's impossible/risky, why not something like Starlark or Lua? I think this is based on a fundamental misreading of the problem. The privacy concern is that your data will leak, not merely that it's accessible to a third party. The cat binary can read my data, and I'm not at all concerned about that. So can my shell, and likewise on the concern. Privacy doesn't necessitate this solution. It is one of the possible solutions, but I think is hard to sell as the best solution to the problem. It is likely the easiest.