←back to thread

451 points todsacerdoti | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
keeganpoppen ◴[] No.45058084[source]
i will say that though i am predisposed to appreciate and agree with an article like this, any sort of value proposition around "some users don't want javascript" just doesn't... hit for me. and, mind you: i am a card-carrying arch user and have spent more time messing with browser scripting and web crawling, and am more of a True Believer than most. it's just such a niche user preference that i think it should largely be simply ignored. yes, i would love the world to be better for the "noscript" universe, no, i don't think that any individual "grassroots" effort should stake itself on "no javascript" being any part of its utility. i think there are a million other reasons why CSS should win out that are more compelling than an appeal to what feels, extremely ironically, like a callback to the "but 10% of your users use IE6" days... all in all, yes: this is somewhat of a minor point wrt. to the article (which btw i think is great), but i am just calling the "trend", such as it is / has been, for what (i think) it is.
replies(5): >>45058205 #>>45058259 #>>45058381 #>>45058464 #>>45059079 #
rebane2001 ◴[] No.45058259[source]
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

replies(5): >>45058494 #>>45059123 #>>45059657 #>>45059996 #>>45060150 #
ajross ◴[] No.45059123[source]
> 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.)

replies(3): >>45059179 #>>45059461 #>>45060596 #
1. hilbert42 ◴[] No.45060596{3}[source]
"Because you still want to use (and not just "look at") Facebook or WhatsApp or BSky or Drive or CoD:BO6 or... everything."

For many people that's true and good luck to them.

For others, myself included, I can't think of anything worse online than being locked into mega corporations such as Google and Facebook. I don't have a Google or Facebook account and I de-Google my Android phone by either disabling or removing all Goolge apps (there are pleanty of alternatives).

I'd bet that if you did a survey you'd find that those who can live without scripts are also those who can essentially live without Social Media and or Google apps. However, for many, the imperatives of Social Media are so strong that no argument would ever convince them to go script-free.

In essence, here we're dealing with diametrically opposite worldviews and there's little point or value in trying to reconcile them.