sent from a disposable whonix qube
this post was submitted on 15 Aug 2026
632 points (97.0% liked)
linuxmemes
32519 readers
350 users here now
Hint: :q!
Sister communities:
Community rules (click to expand)
1. Follow the site-wide rules
- Instance-wide TOS: https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/
- Lemmy code of conduct: https://join-lemmy.org/docs/code_of_conduct.html
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
sudoin 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. π¬π§ Language/ΡΠ·ΡΠΊ/Sprache
- This is primarily an English-speaking community. π¬π§π¦πΊπΊπΈ
- 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 figures
We 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You put the "either" part, but I think you forgot to put the "or" part, which in my case here is that I used to allow javascripts for all sites and access all of the worst most popular ones but have come to realize over years of experience that the javascript-dependent ones are extremely likely to be god-awful experiences (to me). So I don't tend to bother with them anymore. That doesn't mean I don't occasionally get curious and investigate. It's just that my investigations do not deviate from my expectations. So I continue to conclude the same: that things have not improved (and in fact, they have gotten worse over time).
Based on my past experiences and random experiments, yes, I continue to conclude that those types of sites suck. The commonality is the requirement of the user to allow javascripts, which I see as forced self-harm at this point.
Idk how it seems that I actively use most sites. I would think that's impossible of any human. I recognize patterns, and the one that's relevant here is the quality/value (to me) of javascript-dependent sites.
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
There are so many things I hate about these types of sites, and the ones which require javascript tend to have at least a few of these awful "features". And another major bad experience is the first one: being given a demand in order to access the page, being required to allow javascript, especially the condescending messages that are like "sorry this is required" or "you must allow javascript". The demands are toxic/hostile and then the javascript elements themselves are an affront. The whole experience is always terrible (to me). I just want to get what I was seeking and leave in a rush to gtfo of there. It's never pleasant for me.
Hopefully this was more clear and to the point, but if there's anything else, please let me know and I'll address it. I am probably the most talkative person on this platform when I actually have people and a topic.
Though, sorry again for another wall of text. It is really easy for me to just keep going and is kinda difficult to hold myself back. And again, I don't intend for any of this to come across in a negative light. It can be difficult to create a text-based vibe that matches what I'm trying to convey sometimes. Probably doesn't help that I'm almost always sleep-deprived.
And now I'm struggling to finish this comment, so how about an emoji π©·
What confuses me is that in this case "these types of sites" is "almost the entire Internet"
I'll be more direct and ask a question. What percentage of the Internet would you say you run into major functionality broken without JavaScript?
I'm not sure why you're quoting me there when that is not a direct quote. Other users were insisting that most of the internet "is broken" without javascript, and I simply agreed with them.
From my experience, I'd say that maybe around 50% to 70% of the time, a website I open in a new tab shows the signs of being a broken site, and I usually don't bother to check further. Sometimes I do check and find that the site is indeed broken, but other times I find that it's fixable.
But yeah, it feels like at least about half of the sites I randomly try to open in a new tab end up appearing broken. I'm not sure what you're suggesting is a normal percentage, so idk if that guestimate seems reasonable or unreasonable to you. But I've been browsing the web like this for the past several years, so I do have a good bit of experience with this sorta thing, and that's my honest assessment. It's very common, but there are still lots of sites which are functional, so the web continues to have things of value to offer to me.
The first string in quotes was you, the second was me. Probably was confusing. In any case you answered my question and I feel less confused. For me, this number would probably be 95% no kidding. 50-70% is surprising but again, before I thought you were implying most sites, maybe even 90% worked fine without JavaScript. Once I consider that you already know many sites that don't work without JavaScript which you don't even try anymore, I guess those percentages could make sense.
It's a wild way to live, gotta say. By turning off JavaScript, you're essentially turning off most of the Internet. And especially when you are already running it in a super secure container, this is just wild to me.