2 ms·

It’ll be a run-on effect of whatever framework they are using, and they very justifiably don’t want to bother catering to you. Having JS disabled in 2026 and c

It’ll be a run-on effect of whatever framework they are using, and they very justifiably don’t want to bother catering to you. Having JS disabled in 2026 and complaining about sites not behaving is simply a performative act.

sroussey 5mo ago
[flagged]
lazide 5mo ago
It’s basic self defense. Who runs around the web in 2026 allowing random JS? Might as well be licking seats on the subway.
- lmm 5mo ago
  If you trust your browser it's fine, and if you don't then both CSS and SVG are significantly more risky.
  - sysguest 5mo ago
    > then both CSS and SVG are significantly more risky. how???
  - margalabargala 5mo ago
    This isn't true at all. Anything SVG does maliciously, it does by containing JavaScript, so SVG's worst case is a subset of JS's.
  - fc417fc802 5mo ago
    Remind me again what the ratio of browser sandbox escapes coupled with full RCE is between JS, CSS, and SVG?
- Telaneo 5mo ago
  > Who runs around the web in 2026 allowing random JS? Within a rounding error, 100% of people on the internet.
  - lazide 5mo ago
    It’s a lot higher pct when you count vpns with JS filtering, ad blockers, etc.
    - Telaneo 5mo ago
      Even then, they're using disallow lists. If you go on a random web page with novel JS, then that'll still be run. The only people working of allow lists are the people running NoScript and the like, and those truly aren't running random JS. But those people are a rounding error compared to the greater internet.
akimbostrawman 5mo ago
>and they very justifiably don’t want to bother catering to you Considering they are one of the very few sites and VPNs that allow sign up without JS your claim is verifiably false. They also collaborate with and develop there own tor browser fork which has the highest rate of non JS user.
GoblinSlayer 5mo ago
2015: It's a SPA blog because my employer forced me to do it that way, I didn't want it. 2026: It's a SPA blog because I very justifiably don't want to bother catering to you. Having JS disabled in 2026 and complaining about sites not behaving is simply a performative act.

sroussey 5mo ago

[flagged]

lazide 5mo ago

It’s basic self defense. Who runs around the web in 2026 allowing random JS? Might as well be licking seats on the subway.

lmm 5mo ago
If you trust your browser it's fine, and if you don't then both CSS and SVG are significantly more risky.
- sysguest 5mo ago
  > then both CSS and SVG are significantly more risky. how???
- margalabargala 5mo ago
  This isn't true at all. Anything SVG does maliciously, it does by containing JavaScript, so SVG's worst case is a subset of JS's.
- fc417fc802 5mo ago
  Remind me again what the ratio of browser sandbox escapes coupled with full RCE is between JS, CSS, and SVG?
Telaneo 5mo ago
> Who runs around the web in 2026 allowing random JS? Within a rounding error, 100% of people on the internet.
- lazide 5mo ago
  It’s a lot higher pct when you count vpns with JS filtering, ad blockers, etc.
  - Telaneo 5mo ago
    Even then, they're using disallow lists. If you go on a random web page with novel JS, then that'll still be run. The only people working of allow lists are the people running NoScript and the like, and those truly aren't running random JS. But those people are a rounding error compared to the greater internet.

akimbostrawman 5mo ago

>and they very justifiably don’t want to bother catering to you Considering they are one of the very few sites and VPNs that allow sign up without JS your claim is verifiably false. They also collaborate with and develop there own tor browser fork which has the highest rate of non JS user.

GoblinSlayer 5mo ago

2015: It's a SPA blog because my employer forced me to do it that way, I didn't want it. 2026: It's a SPA blog because I very justifiably don't want to bother catering to you. Having JS disabled in 2026 and complaining about sites not behaving is simply a performative act.