3 ms·

No that misses the point. Turning off JS might not be impossible, but once it became inconvenient enough, more and more sites came to fundamentally depend on i

No that misses the point. Turning off JS might not be impossible, but once it became inconvenient enough, more and more sites came to fundamentally depend on it and became impossible to use without it. So if you turn it off, lots of the web becomes unbrowseable. Regarding the browser internals being in JS: the UI option to turn off JS was about not running JS found on web sites. The browser internals are another matter.

nobody9999 4y ago
>No that misses the point. Turning off JS might not be impossible, but once it became inconvenient enough, more and more sites came to fundamentally depend on it and became impossible to use without it. So if you turn it off, lots of the web becomes unbrowseable. Sorry for the late reply. Actually, I am very much aware of this. Mostly because I default to browsing with JS disabled and don't enable it unless it's required for the content on a particular page. Often times, I just don't even bother enabling JS on pages that require it and move on without viewing whatever "important" information that can "only" be displayed with JS. So yes, I am aware of the overuse of JS. That said, I can't control what tools/frameworks website developers use to create their sites. And since I am not a big fan of running arbitrary remote code on my devices, I choose to limit the ability of remote sites to do so. Is that a solution? No. But asserting control over my devices is the only option I have. Well, aside from raising a few tens of millions to start a web development training academy to teach the world's web developers that they shouldn't use JS to do simple things like displaying static text or images, and that all computing required should be done server-side and not on the client, unless the client affirmatively consents to such code running on their device. Unfortunately, I'm guessing the VC world has little interest in such an endeavor. As such, I'll continue to do as I do WRT JS. It's not great. Heck, it's not even good. But it allows me to at least attempt to retain control over my property (in this case, browser-capable devices). I take other steps too, such as using DNS block lists (PiHole), egress filtering, browser containers/private tabs as well as various content blockers. Those steps may turn out to be ineffective in the long term, but hopefully I'll be dead before that happens. I will continue to employ and tweak those methods until they aren't useful. My devices should do what I tell them to do, not what web developers want my devices to do. While those things may be the same, I'd like to be able to decide that for myself.

nobody9999 4y ago

>No that misses the point. Turning off JS might not be impossible, but once it became inconvenient enough, more and more sites came to fundamentally depend on it and became impossible to use without it. So if you turn it off, lots of the web becomes unbrowseable. Sorry for the late reply. Actually, I am very much aware of this. Mostly because I default to browsing with JS disabled and don't enable it unless it's required for the content on a particular page. Often times, I just don't even bother enabling JS on pages that require it and move on without viewing whatever "important" information that can "only" be displayed with JS. So yes, I am aware of the overuse of JS. That said, I can't control what tools/frameworks website developers use to create their sites. And since I am not a big fan of running arbitrary remote code on my devices, I choose to limit the ability of remote sites to do so. Is that a solution? No. But asserting control over my devices is the only option I have. Well, aside from raising a few tens of millions to start a web development training academy to teach the world's web developers that they shouldn't use JS to do simple things like displaying static text or images, and that all computing required should be done server-side and not on the client, unless the client affirmatively consents to such code running on their device. Unfortunately, I'm guessing the VC world has little interest in such an endeavor. As such, I'll continue to do as I do WRT JS. It's not great. Heck, it's not even good. But it allows me to at least attempt to retain control over my property (in this case, browser-capable devices). I take other steps too, such as using DNS block lists (PiHole), egress filtering, browser containers/private tabs as well as various content blockers. Those steps may turn out to be ineffective in the long term, but hopefully I'll be dead before that happens. I will continue to employ and tweak those methods until they aren't useful. My devices should do what I tell them to do, not what web developers want my devices to do. While those things may be the same, I'd like to be able to decide that for myself.