scripts?

sent from a disposable whonix qube

REDACTED 3 points 3 days ago

How tf do you people use the web with JavaScript disabled? Almost all websites stop working

path: 0 25342738, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 5

keiko 1 point 3 days ago

Those are websites I don't want to use. As I've said in other comments, sites which break without javascript are what I consider broken sites. And I don't like to use broken sites.

Almost all websites stop working

Another way of saying this: Most websites are broken and not worth accessing.

Like, have you seen the web? Most sites suck. lol. The good ones don't bully/coerce me to change my behaviour.

save

path: 0 25342738 25343441, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 4

REDACTED 1 point 2 days ago

I don't know man. This seems extreme. JavaScript is part of web standard, nearly all sites use it, including every single of my own site/project. I don't even consider people who have it disabled as I treat them same as bots.

Imagine saying "Windows is less secure than Linux, so I'm not going to make any of my apps work on windows". You'd get so many weird stares. It's like instead of dealing with it, learning how to be safer, etc, you're shutting out.

EDIT grammar

save

path: 0 25342738 25343441 25354249, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 3

keiko 1 point 21 hours ago

I don't know man.

Please don't say that to me.

nearly all sites use it

Yep, and the ones that don't work without it are what I call broken, and those are not sites that I care to use.

I don't even consider people who have it disabled as I treat them same as bots.

To quote you: "This seems extreme."

But it's your decision, just like it's my decision to not bother with sites like that. I'm not sure if you're trying to convince me to comply, but that is exactly what makes me avoid a site. I don't put up with that sort of thing anymore. It's not worth my time.

Imagine saying "Windows is less secure than Linux, so I'm not going to make any of my apps work on windows".

Are you unaware of Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) and that there are plenty of developers who don't bother making things for closed systems like Windows? It's not weird at all.

It's like instead of dealing with it, learning how to be safer, etc, you're shutting out.

How am I not "dealing with it" ? I don't value sites which mistreat me, and so I avoid them. I am happier as a result. I have more comfort and self-respect, and I lose nothing.

From another of my comments:

Without javascripts, I get neat and tidy static pages that load super fast. I can have dozens of them loaded in separate tabs on my Librem 5 or Pinephone, which only have 3GB of RAM. It's nice and comfy.

With javascripts, I get a bad experience involving

ads

trackers

cookie notices

popups & overlays

obnoxious "chat" features

long wait times for everything to load

new elements pushing other elements around as they load

pages which automatically reload/refresh without my consent

useless effects like blur which slow down the pages significantly

"infinite scroll" pages which fuck up my calm navigation of the page

poorly-designed pages which aren't easy to fix with things like web dev tools or ublock origin

captchas

etc. etc. etc.

I'm not seeking to convince web devs like you to design your sites to my liking, but you shouldn't expect people like me to want to use your sites if they're broken.

It's rarely ever worth it to comply with the demand to allow scripts, and I resent that it is so often a demand rather than a suggestion.

save

path: 0 25342738 25343441 25354249 25374110, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 2

REDACTED 1 point 19 hours ago

Just to be clear, the JavaScript in my sites is used to improve load times and functionality, not for tracking or other stuff. It has been a standard for quite some time to not load entire pages again if a user clicks on something or scrolls below visible area, but rather only what's changing. I can guarantee you the alternative is slower as it has been tested and proven for years and years. I wanted to ask you how are you even using YouTube, but I guess they made non-JS version because they also heavily rely on dynamic content. That means your YouTube page doesn't just load what you see, it also loads comments and other bloat that you might never need, resulting in larger html itself.

save

path: 0 25342738 25343441 25354249 25374110 25375141, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 1

keiko 1 point 18 hours ago

It has been a standard for quite some time to not load entire pages again if a user clicks on something or scrolls below visible area

Yes, and I hate that. The alternative gives me a complete page which is accessible with or without an active internet connection. The standard you like is a worse experience for me. Loading complete pages without javascripts is aways a faster and better experience than sites which hide content behind a javascript 'paywall'. I think I'll start calling it that from now on, because that's what it is to me, a javascript paywall.

I wanted to ask you how are you even using YouTube

I don't use GAFAM serivices. If I want to access content which is controlled by youtube (rare), then I use an invidious instance. If I want comments to load, I load the page with the tag specifying non-javascript mode.

save

path: 0 25342738 25343441 25354249 25374110 25375141 25376037, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0