Yes, I browse with JS switched off (Chromium). However, I do enable it for some sites where the risk/reward ratio is worth it. I also have a hosts file block li

Yes, I browse with JS switched off (Chromium). However, I do enable it for some sites where the risk/reward ratio is worth it. I also have a hosts file block list. The combination means I see hardly any adverts at all. I also have Consent-O-Matic installed, which takes care of the cookie blocking on those occasions where I do enable JS. I generally find the experience browsing the web is by far better like this than with JS switched on. Web pages load quickly and use less CPU and RAM. I don't get a load of popovers asking me to sign up to spam, asking me to allow cookies, or advertise random products. Some web site that don't allow non-subscribers to view the whole article (like New York Times) do with JS switched off. I don't have my mouse movements tracked so that they can detect when I'm about to close the tab. I worry very much less about security. I have confidence that those idle tabs aren't making my CPU busy and draining my battery. The trade-off is that some web pages don't work. These can be broadly categorised. Some web pages don't work (as far as I can tell) out of pure spite - the JS is completely unnecessary, but the page just shows a blank white page without it. This is usually a simple fix like inspecting the source and toggling the CSS display: block attribute. That kind of page is just user-hostile in its approach - they go against all accessibility requirements, and I consider that if they're dastardly enough to pull that sort of trick, they're probably nasty enough to use JS to do really horrible things, and they will never have JS enabled by me. Then there are those cool demo pages that get posted on HN every now and again, where the content is JS. These usually get enabled - they pass the risk/reward test. Other pages are the generic large corporate web sites where I can see that JS should enhance the page, but shouldn't be necessary. In my view, the burden of deciding whether to enable JS on a non-working site or dig into the source is much less than the burden of dealing with all those popovers, adverts, anti-patterns, and privacy risks. That's why I do it.