You're entitled to your position but please acknowledge there are a lot of tech-savvy people who do want a javascript-enabled web.

I could just as easily say you don't value your privacy and security as much as novelty since you are going to arbitrary websites.

People find zero days in image renderers, how do you justify not disabling image rendering? Your user agent and your browsers supported TLS configs are leaking who you are, how do you justify sending that info to every random web server?

Even just being on hackernews right now proves you are accepting a negative security impact for some novelty value.

> People find zero days in image renderers, how do you justify not disabling image rendering?

Rather more rarely than they do in JavaScript. But that's why lynx, links, elinks, w3m, emacs-w3m, eww & friends are so important!

But yes, if one wishes to render an image, then one must render an imagine. But why would one wish to execute JavaScript, when one only wishes to read text? I've no objection to executing JavaScript when it's required for an app (although I do object to apps which could be more cleanly delivered as pages).

> Your user agent and your browsers supported TLS configs are leaking who you are, how do you justify sending that info to every random web server?

Because it's a requirement to use TLS.

JavaScript is not a requirement to read articles or listicles (which are the vast majority of the pages targeted by AMP); people who demand JavaScript in order to display text and images are breaking the Web, and endangering their users' security and privacy.

I really am curious what the folks who are so eagerly downvoting me are thinking. Are they thinking (i.e., do they have persuasive counterarguments), or are they just feeling (i.e., are they reacting emotionally, without a rational basis)? I genuinely wonder what possible objection they can have to 'that JavaScript enables privacy and security exploits is neither a position nor an opinion but the truth'; AFAICT it's as objectionable as pointing out that the sky is often blue or that fire is hot.

I think you're largely getting downvoted because of your tone.

> They, apparently, have a problem acknowledging that they do not value privacy and security as much as they value novelty.

Belittling the contribution of scripting to the web as mere 'novelty' is rather disingenuous. I could list other benefits but I suspect you're already aware of them and discount them because they don't apply to you.

> Belittling the contribution of scripting to the web as mere 'novelty' is rather disingenuous. I could list other benefits but I suspect you're already aware of them and discount them because they don't apply to you.

I don't believe that scripting does contribute to the web (i.e., the interlinked web of hypertext documents we all use every day), or at least not enough to be worth the cost. The web is about documents, and documents are eminently readable without scripting (ever since writing was invented and displaced oral tradition …).

The cost does apply to me. Every page which requires me to enable JavaScript (and thus forfeit the security of the computers I do my banking and work on, and forfeit more privacy than that necessary to request a document) costs me. Every page which displays nought but a white page costs me.

I have — as I've noted — no objection to web apps qua web apps. Some of them are quite cool, and some are even useful. It's definitely nice to be able to use Linux and run programs written by people who have never used it. I do wish that browsers implemented a better language than JavaScript (which is an embarrassment to our profession) to that end, but what really gets me is the needless proliferation of apps which are really just document readers. I already have a document reader: it's my web browser.

I remember what the web was like when it was just a bunch of folks writing about things they liked and linking to one another. That was a pretty awesome web. I hate that it has been drowned out by folks who think that in order to read their documents I should give them execute privileges on my workstation.