this post was submitted on 15 Aug 2026
618 points (97.1% liked)

linuxmemes

32491 readers
1588 users here now

Hint: :q!


Sister communities:


Community rules (click to expand)

1. Follow the site-wide rules

2. Be civil
  • Understand the difference between a joke and an insult.
  • Do not harrass or attack users for any reason. This includes using blanket terms, like "every user of thing".
  • Don't get baited into back-and-forth insults. We are not animals.
  • Leave remarks of "peasantry" to the PCMR community. If you dislike an OS/service/application, attack the thing you dislike, not the individuals who use it. Some people may not have a choice.
  • Bigotry of any kind will not be tolerated. This is an LGBTQ+-friendly community -- if that is a problem for you, you should leave.
  • 3. Post Linux-related content
  • Including Unix and BSD.
  • Non-Linux content is acceptable as long as it makes a reference to Linux. For example, the poorly made mockery of sudo in Windows.
  • No porn, no politics, no trolling or ragebaiting.
  • Don't come looking for advice, this is not the right community.
  • 4. No recent reposts
  • Everybody uses Arch btw, can't quit Vim, <loves / tolerates / hates> systemd, and wants to interject for a moment. You can stop now.
  • 5. πŸ‡¬πŸ‡§ Language/язык/Sprache
  • This is primarily an English-speaking community. πŸ‡¬πŸ‡§πŸ‡¦πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡ΊπŸ‡Έ
  • Comments written in other languages are allowed.
  • The substance of a post should be comprehensible for people who only speak English.
  • Titles and post bodies written in other languages will be allowed, but only as long as the above rule is observed.
  • 6. (NEW!) Regarding public figuresWe all have our opinions, and certain public figures can be divisive. Keep in mind that this is a community for memes and light-hearted fun, not for airing grievances or leveling accusations.
  • Keep discussions polite and free of disparagement.
  • We are never in possession of all of the facts. Defamatory comments will not be tolerated.
  • Discussions that get too heated will be locked and offending comments removed.
  • Β 

    Please report posts and comments that break these rules!


    Important: never execute code or follow advice that you don't understand or can't verify, especially here. The word of the day is credibility. This is a meme community -- even the most helpful comments might just be shitposts that can damage your system. Be aware, be smart, don't remove France.

    founded 3 years ago
    MODERATORS
     

    sent from a disposable whonix qube

    you are viewing a single comment's thread
    view the rest of the comments
    [–] rtxn@lemmy.world 38 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (6 children)

    Most websites would break, or not even display, without javascript. Sure, it's bonkers for you, but an alternative browser that can't immediately show a website that works perfectly well in Chrome wouldn't get much of a user base.

    [–] Lev@europe.pub 40 points 1 day ago (2 children)
    [–] nightwatch_admin@lemmy.world 27 points 1 day ago (2 children)

    I’m not sure why there is a downvote on this… unless the downvoter thinks you don’t hate javascript enough?

    Got to pump up those hate numbers bro.

    [–] OrganicMustard@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

    There are protocols like gemini that only have text and files, no executing code. I wish there was more of the web moving towards that.

    *Edited for wrong language autocorrect.

    I think yoy ned to profred your comments more.

    [–] OwOarchist@pawb.social 6 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

    Most websites would break, or not even display, without javascript.

    I use NoScript -- I'm well aware.

    But a lot of those websites could function without javascript. A lot of websites use it unnecessarily, for reasons such as:

    • They want their ads and trackers and other malicious code (such as soft paywalls) to work as intended.

    • They want to add fancy cosmetic elements to the content and are too lazy to think about failing gracefully and still displaying the content if javascript isn't working.

    • They built the website in a framework that depends on javascript, and are again too lazy to bother worrying about graceful failure if javascript isn't working, even if their content could, in theory, be displayed just fine without it. (Or maybe the framework developers deserve a bit of the blame for that laziness, since they could have made graceful failure a feature of the framework, but chose not to.)

    In a hypothetical world where most browsers didn't allow every website to run arbitrary code, then every website would be forced to take that into account and only depend on javascript when it's absolutely necessary for the website's core functions.

    [–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 14 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

    Because we fucking designed it that stupid that way, that's exactly grandparent's point

    [–] chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world 13 points 1 day ago (1 children)

    Most websites from when I was a kid did not need JavaScript. Heck, they didn’t even have any JavaScript on many of them! No CSS either, just HTML and images (which were very slow to load on dialup).

    [–] Rooster326@programming.dev 1 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) (1 children)

    That's because they ran Flash, ActiveX, or shivers worse...

    [–] chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world 2 points 10 hours ago

    Oh no, I was along before Flash and ActiveX. Before Windows 95 even.

    [–] hirihit640@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

    Just another piece of evidence that people care more about convenience than privacy, sadly. People aren't willing to put up with a single broken website

    And I mean, you should be able to have both, but... Welp.

    [–] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

    That's the problem though, why is it standard for websites to be built in such a way that their basic functionality depends on allowing such arbitrary scripts? Shouldn't there be some regulatory body that tells them that's against the rules or something?

    [–] rtxn@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

    Do you want regulatory overreach? Imagine forcing every small project or self-hoster to adhere to the rules set by the equivalent of the HDMI Forum, but controlled by the likes of Microsoft and Facebook.

    To redirect your other question: you should ask the web developers. If they're honest, you'll get a dozen legitimate answers that can't be solved without locally running code. A chat web app, for example, needs to either poll the server at a given rate, or use a WebSocket to fetch incoming messages, both of which require Javascript. Then it needs to modify the DOM to display the new messages, which again requires Javascript. If it needs access to the microphone or webcam, it has to use some kind of local interface. I could go on. The point is, a lot of this arbitrary local code exists because there's no other way to implement many features without it. Imagine having to reload an instant messaging app if you want to see if you've received anything. It would be like writing a GUI application using Qt or GTK, but without using any events.

    [–] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

    I don't view basic consumer rights as "regulatory overreach."

    to adhere to the rules set by the equivalent of the HDMI Forum, but controlled by the likes of Microsoft and Facebook.

    No and no. I never said it should be corporations setting the standard. That's the FCC's job, and comparable agencies in other countries. The FCC already regulates many things about the internet. Some things they don't regulate enough. Were you one of those people who viewed Net Neutrality as "regulatory overreach" too?

    Sure, the current admin is corrupt and the current FCC can't be trusted, but that won't be forever.

    Also, there's such thing as the IEEE. Standards for web development are not unheard of, and they're not categorically wrong. There need to be rules governing the rules that govern web development to ensure those rules aren't abused. But setting no rules or standards would be insane.

    If they're honest, you'll get a dozen legitimate answers that can't be solved without locally running code.

    That's not honesty. That's deflection and dissembling. Sure, you can think of a dozen different reasons why scripts need to be run locally. But that doesn't excuse using those scripts as a trojan horse for malicious data mining practices. Permissions can be atomized.

    If a web developer can't compartmentalize the part of the script that loads an image on their website from the part of the script that harvests sensitive fingerprinting data that the website has no legitimate need for, then they're either a really bad developer who's never heard of modularity, or they're doing it deliberately and maliciously because they know they can get away with it and are choosing to make their website break for anyone who doesn't let them basically peep under their device's skirt.

    [–] Kangae_Hishiryo@scribe.disroot.org 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

    I get your point, yeah. I actually do think that scripts should've hugely modularized, compartmentalized, and browsers should've using OCaps instead of ACLs, or at least make more granular ACLs so you can finetune what can or what cannot do a given site and/or a given script.

    [–] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

    Thank you! It seems pretty clear to me, modularity is supposed to be the modern standard for quality code, so why are we normalizing websites that use scripts with more arms than Cthulhu harvesting uniquely identifiable data from our personal devices by running arbitrary code locally? It seems insane to me...

    "One tool for one job." It's pretty basic Unix philosophy. So why do we now have "One script for several hundred different fingerprint variables, oh and also the website's basic functionality"?