3 ms·

> Times change. Exactly, they changed from no-js having some relevance to it basically having no relevance at all and most no-js support is legacy from the pas

> Times change. Exactly, they changed from no-js having some relevance to it basically having no relevance at all and most no-js support is legacy from the past. Today in my experience people are less, not more, likely to disable Js. EDIT: Also a non small part of the web today is video content, which won't work without js.

throwaway290 4y ago
Yeah yeah, "I don't think there are many no-JS users", etc, you keep repeating this in different ways without refuting the point. > Today in my experience Today in my experience 99% of trackers only measure users with JS. > Exactly, they changed from no-js having some relevance to it basically having no relevance at all and most no-js support is legacy from the past. People learned basic technical ideas and changed from buggy insecure ways of browsing the internet (IE, activeX) and forced web engineers to change their ways (test in other browsers than IE) before. It's not even a question of "will it happen again?" because it's already happening > EDIT: Also a non small part of the web today is video content, which won't work without js. Maybe you are just not qualified to argue this. Videos work just as images, text or audio. Try disabling JS and opening https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video for example, it works just fine. If a video doesn't load without JS it's a problem with website or browser implementation.
- sublinear 4y ago
  > Today in my experience 99% of trackers only measure users with JS. So not true. Ever hear of tracking pixels? ETag manipulation? User-Agent tracking? > Maybe you are just not qualified to argue this. Videos work just as images, text or audio. ... ever hear of tracking pixels? These have not been theoretical for a very long time and nowhere close to an exhaustive list. GET requests are usually loaded with parameters as well.
  - rlpb 4y ago
    Nobody is claiming that such methods do not exist, so naming them adds nothing to this thread.
    - sublinear 4y ago
      I guess I thought I was more clear in my previous comment when I said these are not theoretical. Non-JS tracking methods are not just common and not just fallbacks. They are the standard for marketing and anti-abuse mitigations. I'll list a couple more details that make it more familiar. Search engines have been distributing shortened URLs and parameterized links pretty much since the beginning. Both are tokenization schemes that don't require JS and if used correctly are impossible for the user to "block".
- dathinab 4y ago
  > Maybe you are just not qualified to argue this. Videos work just as images, text or audio. no you just have no idea how most normal internet user use the internet sure video works technically, but that's not only not enough, it's irrelevant. What matters is that it needs to work without too much friction and convenience and no-js is the opposite of that. It's a constant running into stumbling blocks again and again. Stumbling blocks most internet user can not solve by themself in just a few seconds. And in turn they will not use no-js, no matter how much anyone tells them it is more secure because it simply doesn't work for them no matter how much it's technically possible.

throwaway290 4y ago

Yeah yeah, "I don't think there are many no-JS users", etc, you keep repeating this in different ways without refuting the point. > Today in my experience Today in my experience 99% of trackers only measure users with JS. > Exactly, they changed from no-js having some relevance to it basically having no relevance at all and most no-js support is legacy from the past. People learned basic technical ideas and changed from buggy insecure ways of browsing the internet (IE, activeX) and forced web engineers to change their ways (test in other browsers than IE) before. It's not even a question of "will it happen again?" because it's already happening > EDIT: Also a non small part of the web today is video content, which won't work without js. Maybe you are just not qualified to argue this. Videos work just as images, text or audio. Try disabling JS and opening https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video for example, it works just fine. If a video doesn't load without JS it's a problem with website or browser implementation.

sublinear 4y ago
> Today in my experience 99% of trackers only measure users with JS. So not true. Ever hear of tracking pixels? ETag manipulation? User-Agent tracking? > Maybe you are just not qualified to argue this. Videos work just as images, text or audio. ... ever hear of tracking pixels? These have not been theoretical for a very long time and nowhere close to an exhaustive list. GET requests are usually loaded with parameters as well.
- rlpb 4y ago
  Nobody is claiming that such methods do not exist, so naming them adds nothing to this thread.
  - sublinear 4y ago
    I guess I thought I was more clear in my previous comment when I said these are not theoretical. Non-JS tracking methods are not just common and not just fallbacks. They are the standard for marketing and anti-abuse mitigations. I'll list a couple more details that make it more familiar. Search engines have been distributing shortened URLs and parameterized links pretty much since the beginning. Both are tokenization schemes that don't require JS and if used correctly are impossible for the user to "block".
dathinab 4y ago
> Maybe you are just not qualified to argue this. Videos work just as images, text or audio. no you just have no idea how most normal internet user use the internet sure video works technically, but that's not only not enough, it's irrelevant. What matters is that it needs to work without too much friction and convenience and no-js is the opposite of that. It's a constant running into stumbling blocks again and again. Stumbling blocks most internet user can not solve by themself in just a few seconds. And in turn they will not use no-js, no matter how much anyone tells them it is more secure because it simply doesn't work for them no matter how much it's technically possible.