sent from a disposable whonix qube

  • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    5 hours ago

    It’s just a very confusing thing to claim, that’s all. If 90%+ of the web doesn’t work with js off then you’re either predetermining that you just won’t use 90% of the web. You’ve decided that ahead of time, so you cannot really say “these sites suck” because you haven’t even been able to use them. If you had said “I try not to use JavaScript dependent sites” that makes sense. But the way you’re presenting it, you don’t have any trouble and just use most sites. Which I happen to know is not possible.

    • keiko@fedia.ioOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 hours ago

      If 90%+ of the web doesn’t work with js off then you’re either predetermining that you just won’t use 90% of the web.

      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).

      You’ve decided that ahead of time, so you cannot really say “these sites suck” because you haven’t even been able to use them.

      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.

      But the way you’re presenting it, you don’t have any trouble and just use most sites. Which I happen to know is not possible.

      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

      • 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.

      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 🩷

      • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 hours ago

        There are so many things I hate about these types of sites,

        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?

        • keiko@fedia.ioOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          35 minutes ago

          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.