how can people browse net without javascript

i just don’t see how it’s desirable for most people to use javascript free sites (on tor) exclusively or script block without breaking a site. Unless you’re a dissident or whistleblower I don’t get why anyone would restrict themselves from a little bit of javascript. I get that it can be malicious at times to privacy but is it really worth the inconvenience for most people?

I use palemoon, meaning that the JS interpretation is slow as soykaf, so i just block scripts using umatrix. Websites with JS disabled often works, but if your site says "this needs JS to work". it takes less time to press C-w than clicking on umatrix to enable JS. It is worth the inconvenence yes, websites with optional JS run unrionically MUCH better with it disabled. best thing you can do to be honest

For the most part I don't experience it as a inconvenience. I experience it as webpages loading much faster and with a lot less latency. I'm also not fond of running obscure proprietary code... and JS doesn't render well in Emacs-integrated things. As per >>34772, disabling JS when it's not required improves performances by a significant factor.

>Muh convenience Give an inch, they'll take a mile. One huuuuge problem in your thinking is you're stuck in the present. If you accept a little bit now, it will balloon into something unrecognizable in the future. Kind of like how opinions on digital privacy have mutated since the 90s or so. Compared to then, privacy doesn't exist at all anymore. And it will have ghastly consequences, but as I said you can't be stuck only thinking about the present. "I don't get it, doesn't seem like a big deal, it's just a convenient website." Once people are surveilled enough, it will make any kind of resistance to top-down campaigns impossible because nobody will be able to move or start something without being immediately seen and neutralized. That's when an eternal digital dictatorship will begin. They won't make a move and will seem fairly benign (and chumps will think the idea that they're plotting evil absurd)... until all the traps are in place and everyone has slowly had these digital razor-wire fences built around them and then they can just come right out in the open and exercise limitless power. Obviously this is pretty broad, JS is just a teeny tiny part of it. But no, I don't want a bunch of crap I can't really control to my satisfaction running on my machine. I don't want sites to force this on me to access information that has nothing to do with the adware and poison. So yeah, I'll continue to pursue browsers and other software that enables me to get at least some of that control back. It's the principle of it. Don't whine about convenience. People can be and are made to accept some of the most awful things for the tiniest amount of convenience. It almost seems like there's no lower bound—any minuscule amount will make most fools accept literally any trespass. Don't be one of those people.

>>34781 what if ur gf is on discord and shes like smoking hot... Ru gonna delete it because it’s a botnet or ru gonna go smash?

>>34783 If a woman can get *that* far with me, she WON'T be using discord

>>34769 I use a whitelist with uMatrix. It's annoying at first but once setup it's wonderful. Websites are safer, faster, and less annoying.

>>34783 Yeah I'm gonna go smash some people I meet at the bar like I always have. Kinda filthy, but I'm fine with that. So is online dating, but in addition to being filthy it's also kind of desperate and sad and transactional. It's dystopian. No thank you. PS you can't transmit your dick through discord. Also are you comfortable with them privatizing and capturing human courtship and interaction in general like this? That they've stolen something that has happened organically for eons and forced everyone to do it across their platforms now? That they're the same ones responsible for stunting everybody's social development in the first place, driving them to these apps and chat media? Think about it. That's the kind of creep I'm talking about, and once again please try and think about where it goes in the future because this isn't its final state. At all. Eventually they won't let you fuсk at all. They'll make you use teledildonics or something. Keep you locked in for biosecurity or something. Say you haven't earned reproduction rights. I mean look around, there's countries where non-cyber sex is literally de facto illegal right now. It gets more bizarre than you think. Don't let yourself believe it's too farfetched, that the people who own you would never do that to you. You've got to keep looking ahead a few moves or you (and the rest of us too) are going to get screwed.

>>34783 Also wanna chime in and ask like do people really hit on girls (even a long-term gf?!) on discord? Maybe I'm kind of behind the times or something but what's the point of using all these apps that do essentially the exact same thing as text or even voice calling? Why do you have to use a walled garden that does the exact same tasks? What's the value-add? When I've got a girlfriend I just text her like a grown man, not some kind of little boy flirting between minecraft sessions

>>34769 There is a middle ground: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Blocking-mode:-medium-mode

Is there any legitimate reason to incorporate javascript into websites nowadays? Besides it being a bit of a legacy standard. It seems everything it's used for can be achieved by some other, safer, more efficient means.

It makes pages load faster Also websites with JS are really laggy on my computer

>>34808 I know it's not proper or whatever but I still tend to lump all that under the umbrella of "scriptѕһіt" or w/e. Want it out >>34812 Makes most pages load outrageously faster. Like if I want something that's primarily text, it goes from 30 seconds of torture to instantaneous. To hell with 'em

I will always push for the least amount of dependencies needed on a site, and if a site can perfectly reasonably be made Javascript free, it fuarrrking should. Simple. However, as for disabling it, I keep everything except CSS and Image field on uMatrix disabled, then if I go to a site, and it needs JS I will whitelist JS for that site (and other stuff it requires). However, I don't understand how people simply refuse to use sites that need JS. Which are A LOT. It's actually absurd.

I've recently started to block JS and frames with umatrix on palemoon, and sites load significantly faster for me now. Another advantage is that I avoid running nonfree JS.

>>34786 i agree with the whole thinking ahead thing. We're probably all gonna die soon though.

Well, noJS-ing could get a little bit more annoying. GitHub just received a DCMA takedown request for `youtube-dl`. https://web.archive.org/web/20203133769069/https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2020/10/2020-10-23-RIAA.md (so you don't have to visit micro-botnet) Let's hope the creators just host it elsewhere and carry on. With some luck, downstream programs will avoid takedown notices. vidrel is an intentional mistranslation: actual translation is "when the revolution happens, the music industry will be the first to go"

>>34932 The python thread on /λ/ has a little discussion started about this already.

And people wonder how hundreds of thousands of devices become parts of botnets (in the literal sense of the word) without the owners'/users' knowledge. One click on a link is all it takes.

>>34932 When will anti-trust fuarrrk these soykafs

>>35010 -> >>>/Ω/34949

By not browsing consoomer niggercattle websites that do require JS for basic functionality.

>>35016 edgy

>>34769 JS is slow as fuarrrk, you oblivious idiot. It has nothing to do with muh whistleblowing. Also it's a source of security vulnerabilities. Imagine an ad within an ad within an ad within an ad within an ad within an ad within an ad within an ad within an ad within an ad within an ad within an ad within an ad that loads up an exploit and steals all your money because you think exploits should not be addressed and don't need to because you're not a Whistleblower (TM).

>>35103 It's not as slow as you think (v8 is ~7x faster than Python), but a lot of soykaf devs suck at writing decent JS

>>35126 yeah it is faster, those 8gbs of source code must be fast

>>35127 You misspelled 40MiB.

>>34769 I don't notice I'm not using it half the time. Most websites are at least viewable without JS. If it's a website that doesn't function without it, I avoid using it. It's tolerability depends on how much you rely on web apps. I use firefox with JS for school, bank, shopping, etc.

>>35126 the browser is slow with even JS off. fetching a ton of random bullshit everywhere is slow regardless of how non-soykaf your JS code is. web app cannot even have code until several workarounds are employed

wait that's not even what my original post was about. it was about the fact that running random code from bottom of the barrel developers mixed with malware attempts, browser profiling (which is needed to figure out which API to use, and happens again and again in each of the 40 embedded ads) and soykaf results in a slow browser. you can wh*telist some sites or do whatever trendy mixture of nosscript/adblock/adblock plus/umatrix/whatever the fuarrrk but it will still be a giant workaround and a non-performant one

Before web and before accessible Internet connections people just ran whatever software came on infomercial disks on their personal computers: catalogues, encyclopedias, zines, games, basically anything you see today on the Web was a DOS/Amiga/Apple executable file with exception of bland office document or text files. Imagine the amount of worms that might have spread this way among, at least today we have free ad blockers with frequent updates and common sense of not accessing outright dangerous sites that spread malware, back in the day you had to trust the borrowed disc or files downloaded overnight from a local BBS. Now imagine the next thing: people who didn't have real computers had to borrow time at bigger computers owned by corporations: they dialed using modem or accessed from local terminals at phone company, at their place of work or study, at some random dude's (actually not random, you had to know him personally) BBS which served inter-city and international Fido echomail. Yes, yes, all the private emails, accounting spreadsheets, games, chats, calculations were handled and stored on someone else's big mainframe computer and admins could check out, alter, delete them any moment or give local law enforcement permission to look! Wait, doesn't this remind you of something?

>>34808 >Is there any legitimate reason to incorporate javascript into websites nowadays? The browser makers basically force it on server side developers They treat basic html as if it were something for magazine publishers If you want anything dynamic at all, you have to use JS to do it For instance, you want a table with resizable columns? Javascript There's no reason that could not be declarative in html directly How many man hours wasted implementing that globally? How about tabbed layout? Why is there no tags for tab groups and tabs? Why is there no time tag? Time zone selection on a map? Currency? Encryption keys? Javascript exists because browser makers never implemented any of this stuff adequately