pluc 19 hours ago

There's absolutely no need for JavaScript on a page that has a text input and two buttons and that has worked without JS for three decades. Given Google's reputation for privacy and the constant attempts at selling their users out, it's fair to assume that the reason they're requiring JavaScript is not noble.

  • orf 18 hours ago

    > There's absolutely no need for JavaScript on a page that has a text input and two buttons

    The whole web is evil then. Hacker news has JavaScript for simple upvote buttons, is it also evil?

    • EvanAnderson 18 hours ago

      HN is usable w/o JavaScript. It doesn't block my access because I choose not to allow it to execute arbitrary code on my computer.

      • gnfargbl 17 hours ago

        * execute arbitrary code in one of the best studied sandboxes on the planet, which happens to be running on your computer.

    • _Algernon_ 18 hours ago

      Voting works for HN without js. Just forces a page refresh.

    • pluc 18 hours ago

      I don't disagree with you. I use NoScript which lets me selectively enable every JS source a site has ever since marketers and advertisers have weaponized it, and you'd be surprised what you find and what works with minimal JS. If anything, it's very educational.

    • elicksaur 14 hours ago

      You miss the point. non-necessity =/= evil, but it does require a non-evil reason. JavaScript could be used on a site for some neat rendering or game where it’s necessary to do that neat thing. Without such a need, the person is inferring the change now is likely nefarious based on other actions from the same company and their motives.

      I’m not necessarily agreeing with the OP, but I can understand their point without naively misconstruing it.

  • bolognafairy 19 hours ago

    Okay. But is it evil?

    • jazzyjackson 18 hours ago

      It's a well intentioned bolt on for adding reactivity without reloading the page, but it's been hijacked by the ad industrial complex to keep tabs on your behavior for people who do not have your best interests in mind. that usage of it, I would say, qualifies for a weak definition of evil.

    • KronisLV 16 hours ago

      For argument's sake, yes, unironically: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.html

      In contrast, this is less evil: https://www.gnu.org/software/librejs/

      But as usual, nobody really cares because it’s also useful and convenient, even if there’s a bunch of ad crap and fingerprinting and tracking and other stuff, basically taking away more and more control over how you want to consume the contents of a site, same as DRM.

      Contrast that to a static site (or a server side rendered one to a lesser degree) which is more like a newspaper - if you have it, you can read it, cut out bits that you’re interested in, stash them away for safe keeping etc.

      The more nuanced answer is that most technologies aren’t inherently evil or good but it depends on how they’re used. Even then the answer still leans towards “yes”.

    • eth0up 18 hours ago

      Whether it's evil or not is a difficult question. I'd say it's at least as bad as satan, considering we can actually confirm its existence. But that it arose naturally from this grotesque universe means it is a valid part of things. Maybe it is we who are evil and it that punishes us.

spwa4 18 hours ago

Javascript is like Flash-lite. Is it evil? No. It's great, even.

What every last commercial site uses it for IS evil, without a doubt.

inopinatus 19 hours ago

It's literally almost an anagram of Satan's Armpits.

bmacho 17 hours ago

It uses a lot of data, it is a security risk, it is a privacy risk, and it forces you to throw away your old devices.

  • victorbjorklund 16 hours ago

    how much extra data does JS on google use vs without JS? We must be talking about kb that are probably also cached.

    • bmacho 16 hours ago

      I personally use a free (and small) mobile data plan, so that several MB/search would make me pay infinite times more. I switched to DDG.

kragen 16 hours ago

No, limiting user freedom as to whether or not to use it is.

Hamuko 19 hours ago

Always has been.

  • gunian 19 hours ago

    If you had to estimate percentage of the web could exist without losing functionality without using JavaScript?

    • jazzyjackson 19 hours ago

      Just fyi the entire browsing and checkout process of Amazon.com works fine without JavaScript, discovering that radicalized me against so called web apps. it just takes actually reading the html spec and maintaining state in the querystring or via session cookie. Latency can be lower than the monstrosities people build with react in the right circumstances.

      • EvanAnderson 18 hours ago

        My phones have had JavaScript off by default for years. I'm amazed by how many sites work fine and are pleasurable to use.

    • croes 18 hours ago

      If you had to estimate the percentage of the malicious web without JavaScript.

      • gunian 18 hours ago

        I only know of JavaScript / Spectre combo are there tales of other evils lurking in the great wild?

    • [removed] 19 hours ago
      [deleted]