The core of the problem is that we've made this behavior of "run javascript that pulls more javascript and then run that too" the default. Stallman was right, as always.

▲

gruez 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

>The core of the problem is that we've made this behavior of "run javascript that pulls more javascript and then run that too" the default. Stallman was right, as always.

It really isn't, because there's plenty of fingerprinting scripts that run on the same domain, especially fingerprinters from security providers like cloudflare or akamai.

▲

binaryturtle 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

A browser basically is like a really dumb trojan, pulling a whole herd of wooden horses into the city.

▲

codedokode 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The problem is not JS, the problem is useless techonolgies like WebRTC or WebGL that can run without permission and that, I think, are used in 99% cases for figerprinting. And people who designed them and did nothing to prevent fingerprinting.

	▲	beeflet an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		WebGL and WebRTC are hardly useless, but they allow you to collect way too much fingerprinting data based on the way they've been designed.
	▲	binoct 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Neither WebRTC or WebGL are remotely ‘useless’. Very fair though to say that you would prefer to have them disabled and/or whitelisted for certain sites.

▲

IshKebab 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Does he have a strong stance of JS in the browser? In any case, I don't think many people would agree that the dubious extra privacy you gain from blocking that is really worth breaking half the web. Fingerprinting is not too hard even without JS.

	▲	StillBored 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I would re-frame "is it really worth breaking half the web" as those sites are not compliant to begin with. Nothing in the web standards stack mandates javascript, its an optional feature! Web developers of yore understood that a fundamental property of a properly written web site was to degrade gracefully if javascript wasn't available, but the groupthink of the past decade has chosen weaponized incompetence over doing their jobs and in the process has not only thrown a load of noncompliant insecure garbage out there, but broken a load of accessibility standards, and other things in the process.
	▲	ekjhgkejhgk 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		> Does he have a strong stance of JS in the browser? Lets see what he says on the subject. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.html
	▲	bee_rider 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Blocking most JavaScript is fine, it mostly just breaks the silly pointless over-designed sites anyway. Just like everything else, most of the internet is garbage; blocking over-designed JavaScript sites isn’t a perfect filter but it is an ok first heuristic.
	▲	delusional 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		His stance is pretty simple. The JS on most pages is proprietary, and he doesn't like proprietary software.