2 ms·

Whilst not going to quite the same "extremes", I completely agree. I use a combination of plugins (primarily uMatrix on firefox), so stop all javascript executi

Whilst not going to quite the same "extremes", I completely agree. I use a combination of plugins (primarily uMatrix on firefox), so stop all javascript execution by default. There are a lot of sites out there dependent on javascript of course - but you can evaluate these as you find them and either move on, give them temporary permission, or permanent permissions. I'm not convinced it actually makes the web any safer to browse given modern browser security controls, but it certainly feels safer to browse, and generally it's a much nicer experince with less crap happening on the page as you go (pop overs etc)

1vuio0pswjnm7 2y ago
When I have to use a popular browser I too use extensions to achieve an "off by default" setting for Javascript. Default settings matter. In popular browsers, Javascript is "on by default". From the evidence produced in Google's antitrust litigation, we know that companies or organisations that control these browsers choose default settings strategically to increase surveillance, data collection and ultimately online ad services revenue. I rarely find websites that are truly dependant on Javascript, meaning the web developer had no choice other than to use it. Instead, what I find is (a) gratuitous use of Javascript to do something, e.g., make an HTTP request, etc., that can also be achieved without it and/or (b) use of Javascript to make HTTP requests I never intended to make, e.g., requests for ads or tracking. Javascript is effectively used to transfer control over web browsing from the web user to the web developer. Through the use of Javascript, a single request for a page becomes a trigger for dozens of additional requests the web user never intended to send, and usually to domains the web user has never heard of, that serve no useful purpose to the web user. 1. Extensions/add-ons like uBlock will show numbers of requests to be triggered with Javascript. Insanely high numbers are common. For example, something like fifty-seven for Github. Meanwhile I am able to use Github to search, read and download source code just fine with a relatively small TCP client (not git) that does not run Javascript, only sends a single HTTP request and generally uses only two github domains, i.e., github.com and githubusercontent.com. In sum, I am not sure that many websites are truly dependant on Javascript to offer what they purport to offer to web users, e.g., information, files, etc. What I am more inclined to believe is that websites are dependant on Javascript to perform surveillance and data collection, not to mention serving ads and tracking.

1vuio0pswjnm7 2y ago

When I have to use a popular browser I too use extensions to achieve an "off by default" setting for Javascript. Default settings matter. In popular browsers, Javascript is "on by default". From the evidence produced in Google's antitrust litigation, we know that companies or organisations that control these browsers choose default settings strategically to increase surveillance, data collection and ultimately online ad services revenue. I rarely find websites that are truly dependant on Javascript, meaning the web developer had no choice other than to use it. Instead, what I find is (a) gratuitous use of Javascript to do something, e.g., make an HTTP request, etc., that can also be achieved without it and/or (b) use of Javascript to make HTTP requests I never intended to make, e.g., requests for ads or tracking. Javascript is effectively used to transfer control over web browsing from the web user to the web developer. Through the use of Javascript, a single request for a page becomes a trigger for dozens of additional requests the web user never intended to send, and usually to domains the web user has never heard of, that serve no useful purpose to the web user. 1. Extensions/add-ons like uBlock will show numbers of requests to be triggered with Javascript. Insanely high numbers are common. For example, something like fifty-seven for Github. Meanwhile I am able to use Github to search, read and download source code just fine with a relatively small TCP client (not git) that does not run Javascript, only sends a single HTTP request and generally uses only two github domains, i.e., github.com and githubusercontent.com. In sum, I am not sure that many websites are truly dependant on Javascript to offer what they purport to offer to web users, e.g., information, files, etc. What I am more inclined to believe is that websites are dependant on Javascript to perform surveillance and data collection, not to mention serving ads and tracking.