zlacker

[return to "Please disable JavaScript to view this site"]
1. tempes+rp[view] [source] 2020-11-29 00:34:16
>>abused+(OP)
I must say, I don't understand the disable JS movement. I browse with JS on, and uBlock Origin to block ads. It's rare that I have any javascript-related problems in my web browsing. On the other hand, I definitely use a number of sites that rely on javascript for useful purposes.

If you're worried about tracking, you can block ads and tracking scripts without disabling javascript. If you're worried about viruses, well, all I can say there is that in my experience and understanding, if you keep your browser updated, the odds of getting a virus via browser JS are exceedingly low. Doubly so if you're not frequenting sketchy sites.

I don't know, it seems to me like advice from a time before security was a priority for browser makers, and high-quality ad blockers existed. At this point, I really don't see the value.

◧◩
2. 1vuio0+Lz[view] [source] 2020-11-29 02:35:58
>>tempes+rp
I must say, honestly, I don't understand the JavaScript (JS) movement. I am not a web developer, perhaps that is the reason.

IME, 9 times out of 10, web developers are using JS for non-necessary reasons. The user configurable settings of popular browsers make it easy to designate the small number of sites that actually require JS and keep JS disabled for all other sites. They anticipate that the user will not have one default JS policy for all websites. In other words, these web browsers do not expect that all users should just leave JS enabled/disabled for every website, they acknowledge there will be situations where it should be disabled.

However as we all know most users probably never change settings. Doubtful it is a coincidence that all these browsers have JS enabled by default.

The number of pages I visit that actually require JS for me to retrieve the content is so small that I can use a client that does not contain a JS interpreter. Warnings and such one finds on web pages informing users that "Javascript is required" are usually false IME. I can still retrieve the content with the use of an HTTP request and no JS.

There is nothing inherently wrong with the use of JS. It is nice to have a built-in interpreter in a web browser for certain uses. For example, it makes web-based commerce much easier. However, I believe the largest use of JS today is to support the internet ad industry. Without having automatic execution of code by the browser without user review, approval or even interaction, I do not believe the internet ad "industry" would exist as we know it.

I believe this not because I think having a JS or other interpreter is technically necessary, but because these companies have become wholly reliant upon it.

That's why disabling JS stopsa remarkable amount of ads and tracking.

[go to top]