5 ms·

fwiw, i've been using the internet with noscript and i find it perfectly usable for any sites that do need js, i simply enable it for them from the extension,

by rebane2001 1y ago

fwiw, i've been using the internet with noscript and i find it perfectly usable for any sites that do need js, i simply enable it for them from the extension, so it never gets in the way with sites i use regularly it's pretty nice for performance/battery and security have you ever tried living with noscript for over a week? i feel like your perspective could be a bit mislead, because i felt the exact same way as you before i started using noscript disclaimer: i'm the author of the blogpost

Mars008 1y ago
Same here, I have noscript almost always on. The problem is some things don't work without JS. Google and Bing search, youtube, even duckduckgo in plane FireFox. The later works in Tor browser, that's what I'm usually using. I usually skip on most other things that require JS to drive blinking ads.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- typpilol 1y ago
  Isn't the tor browser insanely slow though?
  - Mars008 1y ago
    Not anymore. It's very usable when JS is not needed. I've seen more than 5MB/s Tor downloads. The good, or bad, thing is you don't control the exit point. You can only change it by resetting the circuit. Some websites are sensitive to user's location.
- 1718627440 1y ago
  If duckduckgo bothers you, there is html.duckduckgo.com.
ajross 1y ago
> fwiw, i've been using the internet with noscript and i find it perfectly usable Genuine question though: you just run a ton of apps instead, right? Windows apps, iOS apps, whatever. Right? Because you still want to use (and not just "look at") Facebook or WhatsApp or BSky or Drive or CoD:BO6 or... everything. And all that stuff runs in an environment with the same privacy-compromising power (generally much more dangerous, frankly). I just don't see a situation where "use noscript" doesn't really just mean "use your phone so you don't have to use your browser". I mean, why bother? You're not winning anything. (Quite frankly most of the people I see in this argument eventually admit this straight up: "no javascript" really means "no Google" to them, and their goal isn't privacy at all except as a proxy thing; it's the destruction of the World Wide Web as a platform in favor of Apple's offerings.)
- rebane2001 1y ago
  i have js enabled for webapps such as discord and bluesky - having js disabled by default for sites i haven't visited is very good for limiting attack surface for sites such as facebook, i don't really use them that often, so i only run js on them when i feel like consenting to it yes, i use programs/apps, but attack surface and threat models aren't binary, so it's still better to make things more secure
  - ajross 1y ago
    > yes, i use programs/apps, but attack surface and threat models aren't binary, so it's still better to make things more secure But again, the point is that market decisions aren't microeconomic. The world where everyone uses noscript by default is a world where no one builds web apps anymore (because the platform sucks by default) and everyone uses native apps from whoever the dominant vendor happens to be. And that's worse (much worse, by basically every metric, including privacy and security) and not better. Your logic only works if you're a parasite: you can use noscript to "protect" yourself only if most people don't.
    - Jach 1y ago
      Worse for whom? Not the end user, where again they just permanently enable the app once if they are going to use it often. This makes it little different to the consent for browser permissions, like notifications or access to a microphone or camera, which everyone does use. If everyone used noscript you might even see a change to the default interface to make it more like the permissions flow. Separately, we already live in a world where people tend to pick "native" apps (e.g. Discord, Slack) that are just wrappers around the webapp, and on the phone you have similar behavior where people often prefer the "native" app (e.g. twitter/X) over the mobile web version. Despite this asymmetry, web apps continue to be built, and they would continue even if everyone used noscript.
keeganpoppen 1y ago
that’s great! for the record, i am “pro noscript” (whatever that means). and i hope you didn’t take my comment personally. i think it’s more round what others will find compelling. for me, personally, i view “noscript” as valuable per se. i just don’t think it resonates well beyond our nerd-dom, such as it is. love the article brw, and feel ashamed that ancillary stuff like this dominates the discussion on these topics… :)
- DANmode 1y ago
  The point of the post is helping change that perception.
h4ny 1y ago
I have been using NoScript for years and I find calling it "perfectly usable" is a bit of a stretch at least for my use case. I can only see it being "perfectly usable" if you only visit mostly the same sites most of the time and have already enabled whatever you need to enable. I visit new websites all the time because of HN and Reddit, and without JavaScript many sites just don't work or look too broken for me to want to read anything. Unless we collectively decide to stop using buttons instead of anchors for navigation and stop having external, unrelated JavaScript blocking the actual site (that, sometimes funny enough, doesn't require JavaScript to function), it's not going to get any better. I went through a phase where I think JavaScript is bad and have used CSS instead of JavaScript for a lot of things (mostly because I enjoy writing CSS). The thing is if you have ever tried developing any substantial and moderately complex feature for an actual product with CSS instead of JavaScript, while keeping them readable, maintainable and scalable, you will realize that they are good for different things and talking about them in a mutually exclusive way isn't helpful. Both CSS and JavaScript are constantly evolving, I agree with you that there are now things that we should do with CSS instead of JavaScript and increasingly more so.
1vuio0pswjnm7 1y ago
"have you ever tried living with noscript for over a week?" I have been living without Javascript, and without a mouse, for over 20 years When I began using the web, Javascript did not exist Extracting text for reading and downloading files keeps getting easier every year I generally avoid using a browser to make HTTP requests; I sometimes use a text-only browser to read saved HTML (offline)
- hilbert42 1y ago
  Exactly, I too have been sans JS for as long—before it came on the scene. As I implied in my earlier post most users these days don't realize the advantages of turning off JS. Trouble is, most browser manufacturers make it difficult to disable JS, either there's no switch in the settings or it's buried so deep it's essentially dysfunctional. Here I'd especially single out Mozilla with Firefox, one could once easily disable JS but the function was removed I suspect after pressure from Google—as you would know without JS ads are almost a non event. On Android I use Privacy Browser which makes it dead easy to turn JS off and on, and on Windows and Linux it's Pale Moon with a plugin that provides a one-click switch. Seems to me too little is made of these advantages in tech sites such as HN—although that's not surprising given that many here make a living from JS programming and are paid by companies who financially benefit from sending mega-sized JS-loaded pages to web users.

Mars008 1y ago

Same here, I have noscript almost always on. The problem is some things don't work without JS. Google and Bing search, youtube, even duckduckgo in plane FireFox. The later works in Tor browser, that's what I'm usually using. I usually skip on most other things that require JS to drive blinking ads.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
typpilol 1y ago
Isn't the tor browser insanely slow though?
- Mars008 1y ago
  Not anymore. It's very usable when JS is not needed. I've seen more than 5MB/s Tor downloads. The good, or bad, thing is you don't control the exit point. You can only change it by resetting the circuit. Some websites are sensitive to user's location.
1718627440 1y ago
If duckduckgo bothers you, there is html.duckduckgo.com.

ajross 1y ago

> fwiw, i've been using the internet with noscript and i find it perfectly usable Genuine question though: you just run a ton of apps instead, right? Windows apps, iOS apps, whatever. Right? Because you still want to use (and not just "look at") Facebook or WhatsApp or BSky or Drive or CoD:BO6 or... everything. And all that stuff runs in an environment with the same privacy-compromising power (generally much more dangerous, frankly). I just don't see a situation where "use noscript" doesn't really just mean "use your phone so you don't have to use your browser". I mean, why bother? You're not winning anything. (Quite frankly most of the people I see in this argument eventually admit this straight up: "no javascript" really means "no Google" to them, and their goal isn't privacy at all except as a proxy thing; it's the destruction of the World Wide Web as a platform in favor of Apple's offerings.)

rebane2001 1y ago
i have js enabled for webapps such as discord and bluesky - having js disabled by default for sites i haven't visited is very good for limiting attack surface for sites such as facebook, i don't really use them that often, so i only run js on them when i feel like consenting to it yes, i use programs/apps, but attack surface and threat models aren't binary, so it's still better to make things more secure
- ajross 1y ago
  > yes, i use programs/apps, but attack surface and threat models aren't binary, so it's still better to make things more secure But again, the point is that market decisions aren't microeconomic. The world where everyone uses noscript by default is a world where no one builds web apps anymore (because the platform sucks by default) and everyone uses native apps from whoever the dominant vendor happens to be. And that's worse (much worse, by basically every metric, including privacy and security) and not better. Your logic only works if you're a parasite: you can use noscript to "protect" yourself only if most people don't.
  - Jach 1y ago
    Worse for whom? Not the end user, where again they just permanently enable the app once if they are going to use it often. This makes it little different to the consent for browser permissions, like notifications or access to a microphone or camera, which everyone does use. If everyone used noscript you might even see a change to the default interface to make it more like the permissions flow. Separately, we already live in a world where people tend to pick "native" apps (e.g. Discord, Slack) that are just wrappers around the webapp, and on the phone you have similar behavior where people often prefer the "native" app (e.g. twitter/X) over the mobile web version. Despite this asymmetry, web apps continue to be built, and they would continue even if everyone used noscript.

keeganpoppen 1y ago

that’s great! for the record, i am “pro noscript” (whatever that means). and i hope you didn’t take my comment personally. i think it’s more round what others will find compelling. for me, personally, i view “noscript” as valuable per se. i just don’t think it resonates well beyond our nerd-dom, such as it is. love the article brw, and feel ashamed that ancillary stuff like this dominates the discussion on these topics… :)

DANmode 1y ago
The point of the post is helping change that perception.

h4ny 1y ago

I have been using NoScript for years and I find calling it "perfectly usable" is a bit of a stretch at least for my use case. I can only see it being "perfectly usable" if you only visit mostly the same sites most of the time and have already enabled whatever you need to enable. I visit new websites all the time because of HN and Reddit, and without JavaScript many sites just don't work or look too broken for me to want to read anything. Unless we collectively decide to stop using buttons instead of anchors for navigation and stop having external, unrelated JavaScript blocking the actual site (that, sometimes funny enough, doesn't require JavaScript to function), it's not going to get any better. I went through a phase where I think JavaScript is bad and have used CSS instead of JavaScript for a lot of things (mostly because I enjoy writing CSS). The thing is if you have ever tried developing any substantial and moderately complex feature for an actual product with CSS instead of JavaScript, while keeping them readable, maintainable and scalable, you will realize that they are good for different things and talking about them in a mutually exclusive way isn't helpful. Both CSS and JavaScript are constantly evolving, I agree with you that there are now things that we should do with CSS instead of JavaScript and increasingly more so.

1vuio0pswjnm7 1y ago

"have you ever tried living with noscript for over a week?" I have been living without Javascript, and without a mouse, for over 20 years When I began using the web, Javascript did not exist Extracting text for reading and downloading files keeps getting easier every year I generally avoid using a browser to make HTTP requests; I sometimes use a text-only browser to read saved HTML (offline)

hilbert42 1y ago
Exactly, I too have been sans JS for as long—before it came on the scene. As I implied in my earlier post most users these days don't realize the advantages of turning off JS. Trouble is, most browser manufacturers make it difficult to disable JS, either there's no switch in the settings or it's buried so deep it's essentially dysfunctional. Here I'd especially single out Mozilla with Firefox, one could once easily disable JS but the function was removed I suspect after pressure from Google—as you would know without JS ads are almost a non event. On Android I use Privacy Browser which makes it dead easy to turn JS off and on, and on Windows and Linux it's Pale Moon with a plugin that provides a one-click switch. Seems to me too little is made of these advantages in tech sites such as HN—although that's not surprising given that many here make a living from JS programming and are paid by companies who financially benefit from sending mega-sized JS-loaded pages to web users.