Thanks. Yeah, it’s OpenDyslexicAlta Bold. It felt like a good option for a meme font that was kinda different and maybe easy enough to read to make it useful too.

@Digit@lemmy.today
This, I applaud. I aim similarly.

tyvm for the appreciation. and since I can't send upvotes directly, you get extra hearts:
🩷🩷🩷🩷🩷

Okay, I'm going to reply to this message with my responses to various quoted comments from the big chain of comments which I can't directly access from this instance, due to defederation with certain instances. I'm not going to respond to literally every message, but I hope you all know that I do appreciate you for participating in this thread and being part of a really fun and interesting chain.

Thanks for all the comments and sorry for not responding until now.
Since I can't upvote any of the comments in that chain, to all of you I provide lots of hearts:
🩷🩷🩷🩷🩷🩷🩷🩷🩷🩷🩷🩷🩷🩷🩷🩷🩷🩷🩷🩷🩷🩷🩷🩷🩷🩷🩷🩷🩷🩷

@OwOarchist@pawb.social
Honestly, it’s bonkers that the standard, default approach for all mainstream browsers is to let every random website in the world run any arbitrary code it wants on your computer.

This, this, 1000 times this! That is exactly how I feel and was hoping to convey.

@OwOarchist@pawb.social
Yeah, they usually attempt to sandbox it, but still. Sometimes sandboxes can be escaped. And sometimes the code can do significant harm while still inside its sandbox.

Yes, defense-in-depth includes minimizing threats rather than simply relying on protections. It shouldn't be necessary to lower one's shields constantly, and it's better to avoid doing so if possible, from a security & privacy perspective.

@rtxn@lemmy.world
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.

I think the main point is about what is default. People have been and continue to be trained by the defaults (tyranny of the default), and in this case they are trained to expect sites to utilize scripts, which is (imo) unhealthy for society. It would be better if scripts were denied by default and the user could allow them per-site with a single click, similar to how sites will ask the user to allow notifications or location services which the user is able to allow or deny.

Sure, most users simply allow everything. But kids are curious and would be more likely to read and understand such things if presented with the options, and that could translate into a more-informed adult population with better security practices. And overall, I think that'd make for a healthier and happier society which doesn't continue to crumble into worse and worse outcomes.

If the default were to deny scripts, sites would have to at least look somewhat presentable without the scripts, so as to ask the user to enable them. And my hope is that people would prefer the sites that don't pester them for permissions.

@Lev@europe.pub
I hate javascript

Moi aussi

@hirihit640@sh.itjust.works
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

Au contraire. Most people put up with broken sites all the time. The problem is that those people generally aren't aware that the sites are broken, because they're also unaware of the concept of allowing/denying javascripts. If they denied javascripts by default, they'd notice that most of the sites they access are actually broken sites. The ones that function without javascripts are the unbroken ones.

@OrganicMustard@lemmy.world
There are protocols like gemini that only have text and files, no executing code.

I'll have to check that out one day.

@chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world
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).

Simpler times

@cley_faye@lemmy.world
Bugs exists. But JavaScript running in the browser have, theoretically, little access to anything. […]

The risk of allowing JavaScript on a website is more tied to the site data, or tracking. […]

It doesn’t mean every site needs JavaScript, but having this enabled by default is not that big of a security risk for the system. […]

This reminds me of an interesting phenomenon: Some security-oriented people praise the security of the surveillance-advertising corporation's browser engine (chromium), while proclaiming that gecko-based browsers (firefox) are unusable due to inferior security. Yet the main security threat I see is that fucking surveillance-advertising corporation which spreads unvetted and often malicious ads around the web without a care in the world.

Person A: "chromium-based browsers have superior security"
Person B: "i use firefox-based browsers exclusively"
Person A: "outrageous. it's got inferior security"
Person B: "i don't allow scripts"
Person A: "javascripts aren't a major security concern"
Person B: "firefox with scripts denied is more secure than chromium with scripts allowed"
Person A: "javascripts are required for the modern web"
Person B: "untrue, as evidenced by the fact that i access the modern web with scripts denied"

checkmate ♟️

It was really nice but was eventually discontinued. ublock origin can do most of what umatrix could do, and NoScript is similarly useful. But it's also simple to just deny javascripts and call it a day. Whatever works.

idk how I forgot to point that out, but thank you for doing so. Yes, without the scripts, load times are ⚡fast⚡

I guess im identifying with the bottom right corner lol

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.

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
🩷

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?

Oh, you made that one? I actually saved it because it's legitimately helpful. A lot of tier lists really just reflect a person's preference, but I liked how you grouped yours by category. I'll be referencing it as I explore more distros

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.

I feel kinda weird replying since my comment to which you replied was removed by a mod, and I have no idea why, as there is no reason given in the mod log. I had been trying to respond to the messages which I was and am unable to directly access, due to my instance's defederation policies, but it seems that I've inadvertently upset someone and feel that I should probably stop interacting here, so as not to cause problems.

Thank you for your appreciation 🩷

Ah, that's strange. Sorry that happened to you. Maybe the mod missed you're top-level comment where you explained so they thought you were spamming.

Have a nice day

I don't know man. This seems extreme. JavaScript is part of web standard, nearly all sites use it, including every single of my own site/project. I don't even consider people who have it disabled as I treat them same as bots.

Imagine saying "Windows is less secure than Linux, so I'm not going to make any of my apps work on windows". You'd get so many weird stares. It's like instead of dealing with it, learning how to be safer, etc, you're shutting out.

EDIT grammar

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.

It's really just a matter of value. Odds are that I won't value the sites even if I comply, so I just don't bother (most of the time). Most of the web will continue to have all of the anti-features which repel me, so I'll continue with my avoidance. I've adapted to the way of things. I'd like to run some services myself one day, to add to the web in a positive way, and to host my own communities. I hope that day arrives.

I don't know man.

Please don't say that to me.

nearly all sites use it

Yep, and the ones that don't work without it are what I call broken, and those are not sites that I care to use.

I don't even consider people who have it disabled as I treat them same as bots.

To quote you: "This seems extreme."

But it's your decision, just like it's my decision to not bother with sites like that. I'm not sure if you're trying to convince me to comply, but that is exactly what makes me avoid a site. I don't put up with that sort of thing anymore. It's not worth my time.

Imagine saying "Windows is less secure than Linux, so I'm not going to make any of my apps work on windows".

Are you unaware of Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) and that there are plenty of developers who don't bother making things for closed systems like Windows? It's not weird at all.

It's like instead of dealing with it, learning how to be safer, etc, you're shutting out.

How am I not "dealing with it" ? I don't value sites which mistreat me, and so I avoid them. I am happier as a result. I have more comfort and self-respect, and I lose nothing.

From another of my comments:

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.

I'm not seeking to convince web devs like you to design your sites to my liking, but you shouldn't expect people like me to want to use your sites if they're broken.

It's rarely ever worth it to comply with the demand to allow scripts, and I resent that it is so often a demand rather than a suggestion.

And yet ultimately the answer is to refuse to buy from those companies.

Just to be clear, the JavaScript in my sites is used to improve load times and functionality, not for tracking or other stuff. It has been a standard for quite some time to not load entire pages again if a user clicks on something or scrolls below visible area, but rather only what's changing. I can guarantee you the alternative is slower as it has been tested and proven for years and years. I wanted to ask you how are you even using YouTube, but I guess they made non-JS version because they also heavily rely on dynamic content. That means your YouTube page doesn't just load what you see, it also loads comments and other bloat that you might never need, resulting in larger html itself.

It has been a standard for quite some time to not load entire pages again if a user clicks on something or scrolls below visible area

Yes, and I hate that. The alternative gives me a complete page which is accessible with or without an active internet connection. The standard you like is a worse experience for me. Loading complete pages without javascripts is aways a faster and better experience than sites which hide content behind a javascript 'paywall'. I think I'll start calling it that from now on, because that's what it is to me, a javascript paywall.

I wanted to ask you how are you even using YouTube

I don't use GAFAM serivices. If I want to access content which is controlled by youtube (rare), then I use an invidious instance. If I want comments to load, I load the page with the tag specifying non-javascript mode.

That's cool. What do you do when you, for example, go to pay your utility bills or plan a trip, and the sites required don't work? I'm sorry to keep asking versions of this question, I'm just truly perplexed. When you stack this against even a choice like going vegan, veganism seems easy (and I feel like it's quite difficult in today's world).

I interact with websites very often that seem to be the only option to accomplish something I want or need to do. If most websites don't work, that makes once-easy things hard again. So it is just hard for me to picture. Especially when framed like your post did. I know it's a joke but surely to post it, and after your other comments, instead of seeing this as a huge obstacle, you seem to see it as a blessing?

What do you do when you, for example, go to pay your utility bills or plan a trip, and the sites required don't work?

Bills can be set for automatic payment directly through the bank or with checks by postal service.

Plan a trip? lol, I don't have the ability to do that, for many reasons.

I'm sorry to keep asking versions of this question

You're fine; I don't mind.

I know it's a joke but surely to post it, and after your other comments, instead of seeing this as a huge obstacle, you seem to see it as a blessing?

With regard to browsing the web, yes. Regarding potentially-useful services which disallow me from accessing them due to my disallowing them to run arbitrary scripts on my computer, that's disappointing, yes.

I'm far stranger than you realize. My stance on javascripts is only one aspect of me that's abnormal. I'm also transgender and try my best to protect my privacy in lots of different ways. Life has continued to become more and more difficult, and I live in a constant state of dread. I resent the world for doing this to people like me, for deciding that our suffering is not only inconsequential but mandatory. It doesn't have to be this way, and it shouldn't have to be this way, and yet it is. The world has decided that privacy is to die, and all like me are to go with it. But for now, I continue to exist.

Sorry for the bleak response. And in a meme thread no less ^^'. I hope I'm at least somewhat entertaining.

We’re both here on Lemmy so it’s safe to assume we’re both doing our best, but I’m willing to bet all my money that you are not sourcing all of your tech needs from ethical companies or the open source community. You probably use an Apple or Google made phone, your work might lock you into Microsoft operating systems, the list goes on. It’s not wrong for people to demand better solutions from companies that have managed to establish a monopoly and who use their vast resources to maintain that monopoly.

Idk what we mean by wrong but it's just dumb and causes self inflicted stress. Yes i use microsoft at work because they tell me i have to, i dont complain about it on the internet because that would just be wasting my energy for naught. And no monopoly has ever self policed itself and never will. The problem is the laws passed so go complain to your local politicians instead. And if microsoft was the first company to ever self police itself out of a monopoly, google and apple would instantly suck up all that market share.