6 ms·

Me too. I've a simple but strict set of security rules for whether I'll use a website. - it does not want to run javascript - that I can access it over Tor w

Me too. I've a simple but strict set of security rules for whether I'll use a website. - it does not want to run javascript - that I can access it over Tor without being blocked - that it will work in a text based browser like elinks Despite the protestations by idealogues that no such sites exist, HN meets all those requirements, as do dozens of useful sites I regularly use. If and only if I get to evaluate the quality of a site based on those requirements, I may eventually register, with nothing more than an email, in order to post replies. Quora fell off that list long ago. More recently so did StackExchange. Often I find that things break as soon as Cloudflare proxies are involved.

obernard 3y ago
You must agree that for almost every web-based product, designers and product managers can safely decide to completely ignore all people who have requirements like yours without it ever affecting their success.
- CamperBob2 3y ago
  Not only can they ignore such users, they have to.
  - nonrandomstring 3y ago
    And yet here I am, the annoying fly in the ointment of your hypothesis, no?
    - CamperBob2 3y ago
      One thing I like about HN is that they make the same amount of money off of me whether I run JavaScript or not. I imagine we can agree there...
      - nonrandomstring 3y ago
        Oh indeed. What a wonderful training set this will make one day when it's sold. We'll be too sore to sit down in the morning, but right now at least we're getting a reach-around.
        int_19h 3y ago
        Given that HN has a public API to export all the conversations nobody needs to wait for that day to make it into a training set. In fact, I would be extremely surprised if it hasn't already been trained on.
- nonrandomstring 3y ago
  Yes I absolutely do agree with that. Designers and product managers may completely ignore people like me, trample all over our needs and ignore us. Why would they care about the one percent. All good luck power to them and their values. But I am also not the least bit concerned with whether their products are a success or not. Why would I care if they do not? Yet I cannot concur that "almost every" site does. No, there are some that do. Moreover, those sites seem to self curate as being of very good quality. So I am happy that there are thoughtful, intelligent people out there who "get it". When they stop, so do I, and just move on. It's not personal and I'm not invested in them.
  - foobiekr 3y ago
    It’s not 1%, more like 0.005%.
  - thexumaker 3y ago
    You're not even 1%, maybe .000001%
  - astrange 3y ago
    My experience running websites tells me that ignoring people like you is actually mandatory because they'll take up all your time and have opposite tastes of contributing users.
    - nonrandomstring 3y ago
      > people like you eeeeeeeewww! That's not a great look is it!? ^^^ delete button maybe? > have opposite tastes of contributing users. The people you exclude are unlike the contributing users.... yep no tautology there then :)
scarface_74 3y ago
I can 100% guarantees you that Quora didn’t die because of people who didn’t want to run JavaScript or be able to access it over Tor.
- nonrandomstring 3y ago
  Surely my absence played no pivotal role in their downfall. I didn't even know Quora had "died". How sad. RIP Quora. But a tjpnz said: "They're also driving away contributors with more altruistic motivations" Now, I can agree with that, because I see a very strong alignment between the set of people who strongly uphold their own values and have self-respect, and those who stand up for the rights of others and have something to give. The "walled garden" internet basically drives away people who give a fuck.
  - zht 3y ago
    One other way of saying “drives away people who give a fuck” could be saying those people are self-aggrandizing, self important, always yelling at the top of their lungs about their zealotry telling everyone at first opportunity about how they turn off JavaScript and don’t contribute the much to the discussion I liken people like this to the Amish. They balk at modernity as being incompatible with their beliefs. So they withdraw from the world and live life as they see fit. What they don’t do is go around all the time yelling at people telling them how their lifestyle is wrong or constantly telling other people how they don’t use certain technologies.
    - nonrandomstring 3y ago
      That really flipped your wig didn't it? I'm intellectually curious, what you're so deeply invested in that was just threatened?
      - scarface_74 3y ago
        He’s right, people who always talk about they don’t use sites that require Javacript adds about as much to the conversation as people who show up in television conversations and say “I haven’t owned a television in 20 years, do people still watch TV?”
nottorp 3y ago
Hmm I was going to say something about Stallman-like fanaticism, but then I remembered Stallman proved to be mostly right...
- nonrandomstring 3y ago
  Richard is most concerned about injustices toward people that take away their freedoms. I am most concerned about the security of people and how software makes them insecure in order to profit from, or abuse them. These are proximate but different. It is a bit worrying that both freedom and security are thought 'fanatical' by some.
  - jstarfish 3y ago
    > It is a bit worrying that both freedom and security are thought 'fanatical' by some. Because those are your grandpa's and your dad's causes, respectively. The operative word for this generation is "consent." Manipulate someone into giving Consent and you can do whatever the hell you want to them. They asked for and agreed to the abuse! It all starts with clicking "I accept." My skin crawls anytime I see someone bring it up; it's a red flag that someone is trying to apply BDSM protocol negotiation to an otherwise-simple interaction. Attorneys do this shit too. People only ever do it at all when they're trying to rewrite the rules in their favor.
    - nottorp 3y ago
      > It all starts with clicking "I accept." You don't have to click 'I accept'. If the dialog is too complex to figure out what you're accepting, click reject or close the page. If there is no obvious reject (even if there is a hidden one) just close the page and never come back.
    - nonrandomstring 3y ago
      In all honesty I think grandpa's and dad's causes were getting home with all their arms legs still attached, but I hear you. Once the sound of trumpets fades and the flags are folded, it's hard to get out of your head what has been internalised so deeply. Yeah they're just words, usually uttered by men who've sacrificed nothing. But hey, this thing about "consent". Jolly interesting. Because not a single person I've met born after 2000 really has the capacity I do not mean that in a disparaging way, but I do mean it in a serious legal sense. I don't think that in the 21st century the vast majority of adults have the capacity to consent to digital contracts. It started with EULAs, and has since plunged the entire legal profession into degeneracy. It's total failure to protect the lives of common people from technology predators is shameful.

obernard 3y ago

You must agree that for almost every web-based product, designers and product managers can safely decide to completely ignore all people who have requirements like yours without it ever affecting their success.

CamperBob2 3y ago
Not only can they ignore such users, they have to.
- nonrandomstring 3y ago
  And yet here I am, the annoying fly in the ointment of your hypothesis, no?
  - CamperBob2 3y ago
    One thing I like about HN is that they make the same amount of money off of me whether I run JavaScript or not. I imagine we can agree there...
    - nonrandomstring 3y ago
      Oh indeed. What a wonderful training set this will make one day when it's sold. We'll be too sore to sit down in the morning, but right now at least we're getting a reach-around.
      - int_19h 3y ago
        Given that HN has a public API to export all the conversations nobody needs to wait for that day to make it into a training set. In fact, I would be extremely surprised if it hasn't already been trained on.
nonrandomstring 3y ago
Yes I absolutely do agree with that. Designers and product managers may completely ignore people like me, trample all over our needs and ignore us. Why would they care about the one percent. All good luck power to them and their values. But I am also not the least bit concerned with whether their products are a success or not. Why would I care if they do not? Yet I cannot concur that "almost every" site does. No, there are some that do. Moreover, those sites seem to self curate as being of very good quality. So I am happy that there are thoughtful, intelligent people out there who "get it". When they stop, so do I, and just move on. It's not personal and I'm not invested in them.
- foobiekr 3y ago
  It’s not 1%, more like 0.005%.
- thexumaker 3y ago
  You're not even 1%, maybe .000001%
- astrange 3y ago
  My experience running websites tells me that ignoring people like you is actually mandatory because they'll take up all your time and have opposite tastes of contributing users.
  - nonrandomstring 3y ago
    > people like you eeeeeeeewww! That's not a great look is it!? ^^^ delete button maybe? > have opposite tastes of contributing users. The people you exclude are unlike the contributing users.... yep no tautology there then :)

scarface_74 3y ago

I can 100% guarantees you that Quora didn’t die because of people who didn’t want to run JavaScript or be able to access it over Tor.

nonrandomstring 3y ago
Surely my absence played no pivotal role in their downfall. I didn't even know Quora had "died". How sad. RIP Quora. But a tjpnz said: "They're also driving away contributors with more altruistic motivations" Now, I can agree with that, because I see a very strong alignment between the set of people who strongly uphold their own values and have self-respect, and those who stand up for the rights of others and have something to give. The "walled garden" internet basically drives away people who give a fuck.
- zht 3y ago
  One other way of saying “drives away people who give a fuck” could be saying those people are self-aggrandizing, self important, always yelling at the top of their lungs about their zealotry telling everyone at first opportunity about how they turn off JavaScript and don’t contribute the much to the discussion I liken people like this to the Amish. They balk at modernity as being incompatible with their beliefs. So they withdraw from the world and live life as they see fit. What they don’t do is go around all the time yelling at people telling them how their lifestyle is wrong or constantly telling other people how they don’t use certain technologies.
  - nonrandomstring 3y ago
    That really flipped your wig didn't it? I'm intellectually curious, what you're so deeply invested in that was just threatened?
    - scarface_74 3y ago
      He’s right, people who always talk about they don’t use sites that require Javacript adds about as much to the conversation as people who show up in television conversations and say “I haven’t owned a television in 20 years, do people still watch TV?”

nottorp 3y ago

Hmm I was going to say something about Stallman-like fanaticism, but then I remembered Stallman proved to be mostly right...

nonrandomstring 3y ago
Richard is most concerned about injustices toward people that take away their freedoms. I am most concerned about the security of people and how software makes them insecure in order to profit from, or abuse them. These are proximate but different. It is a bit worrying that both freedom and security are thought 'fanatical' by some.
- jstarfish 3y ago
  > It is a bit worrying that both freedom and security are thought 'fanatical' by some. Because those are your grandpa's and your dad's causes, respectively. The operative word for this generation is "consent." Manipulate someone into giving Consent and you can do whatever the hell you want to them. They asked for and agreed to the abuse! It all starts with clicking "I accept." My skin crawls anytime I see someone bring it up; it's a red flag that someone is trying to apply BDSM protocol negotiation to an otherwise-simple interaction. Attorneys do this shit too. People only ever do it at all when they're trying to rewrite the rules in their favor.
  - nottorp 3y ago
    > It all starts with clicking "I accept." You don't have to click 'I accept'. If the dialog is too complex to figure out what you're accepting, click reject or close the page. If there is no obvious reject (even if there is a hidden one) just close the page and never come back.
  - nonrandomstring 3y ago
    In all honesty I think grandpa's and dad's causes were getting home with all their arms legs still attached, but I hear you. Once the sound of trumpets fades and the flags are folded, it's hard to get out of your head what has been internalised so deeply. Yeah they're just words, usually uttered by men who've sacrificed nothing. But hey, this thing about "consent". Jolly interesting. Because not a single person I've met born after 2000 really has the capacity I do not mean that in a disparaging way, but I do mean it in a serious legal sense. I don't think that in the 21st century the vast majority of adults have the capacity to consent to digital contracts. It started with EULAs, and has since plunged the entire legal profession into degeneracy. It's total failure to protect the lives of common people from technology predators is shameful.