I won't argue that JS doesn't add something to the web experience. My main reason for having JS switched off by default is because JS adds something to the web

I won't argue that JS doesn't add something to the web experience. My main reason for having JS switched off by default is because JS adds something to the web experience. Namely, a whole load of annoying things like outrageously illegal cookie banners, adverts over the top of the content you're trying to read, auto-play videos on an unrelated topic when you just want to read the article, paywalls, "invitations" to have notifications or sign up to a newsletter, browser fingerprinting, active tracking, and outright malware. It's a signal to noise ratio thing. There's a small reason to have JS switched on and a large reason to block it. I'd love it if the reason to have JS switched on was even smaller, and that is in fact the recommendation (that JS should enhance an otherwise functional site). I enable JS on sites where I regard the reward as worth it, but most of the time it just isn't, and I don't trust all the rubbish that gets included in the average site.