| ▲ | weberer 3 hours ago |
| Thanks. Its insane how "Twitter, but for tech nerds" has a hard requirement to either enable Javascript or download some app. |
|
| ▲ | peri-cl 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Mastodons will also respond to a plain "application/json" HTTP request, no cruft, curl 'https://beige.party/api/v1/statuses/117057396732763183' | jq '.content'
|
| |
|
| ▲ | magnat 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Especially when the page source actually contains all the content (so no need to fetch it in JS), part of which is even presented in title. |
| |
|
| ▲ | 0points 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| FWIF, way back when, Twitter was the "Twitter for tech nerds". Lots of water under the fridge since... |
| |
| ▲ | weberer 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | That's not how I remember it. Ever since the beginning circa 2008, it was the one site that was being pushed hard by the mainstream media, celebrities, and marketers. None of it was organic. All the tech nerds were on sites like Digg, old Reddit, or Slashdot. | | |
| ▲ | hnlmorg an hour ago | parent [-] | | Early Twitter was used loads by tech nerds as a notifications API. There definitely was a community of experimentation back in early days. |
| |
| ▲ | reactordev 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | “Just place all that corporate malware on the X, X marks the spot” | | |
|
|
| ▲ | smallerize 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| https://beige.party/@intransitivelie.rss |
|
| ▲ | sillysaurusx 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I had a nice mobile experience. It asks you to log in or create an account, but it’s along the bottom, and you can read all the content fine. |
|
| ▲ | mr_mitm 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| How is that different from email, IRC, instant messaging, or anything else nerds use? |
| |
| ▲ | Sharlin an hour ago | parent [-] | | Webmail is perfectly possible, if clunky,without JS. That's how they used to work. IRC and IM require real-time updates of some sort, which is a reasonable use for JS. A Twitter clone shouldn't require JS just to render a page. | | |
| ▲ | mr_mitm 18 minutes ago | parent [-] | | You also can run a Mastodon application server side and serve server-rendered pages. I'm not aware of anyone having done that yet, but, you know, be the change you want to see. It's probably got privacy implications. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | padjo an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I really don't think that describes my Mastodon experience. Twitter for people with a conscience would be more accurate. |
|
| ▲ | tomrod 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Treating HTML as a bootloader for an app has always felt like the wrong pattern to me. Outside of Authn/passkeys, it would seem a person could do basically everything in HTML (but, to be frank, I am not a front end dev and would welcome correction). |
|
| ▲ | Imustaskforhelp an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Thanks. Its insane how "Twitter, but for tech nerds" has a hard requirement to either enable Javascript or download some app. https://masto.mirror.forum/beige.party/@intransitivelie/1170... Source code: https://github.com/SerJaimeLannister/mastoview (Disclaimer: It's vibe-coded. It does server side rendering to then just give pure HTML to the end user with no JS required.) I hope that this helps people who want to view Mastodon without JS. |
|
| ▲ | tantalor 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Patches welcome |
| |
| ▲ | smart_asslop 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | >Patches welcome Are they, though? Or are you just parroting the meme? (The last I recall, Gargron's position was essentially "build your own third-party frontend if you want noJS".) | | |
|
|
| ▲ | mindslight 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It's understandable when you see that the ethos is to have software that represents the user in charge of the rendering, rather than centralizing it all on the server. There is a major difference between common "app store apps" or hostile javascript bundled with websites, versus software that's been written to work in the user's interest. However as they use similar delivery methods, it's understandable that it takes a minute to think through and revisit your assumptions that have lead to being default anti- javascript or app. |
| |
| ▲ | Dylan16807 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | That makes sense until you remember what "rendering" is supposed to mean. Forming the HTML has no reason to be client side when you're using the site-provided experience. Yes provide a json version for other clients, but for direct viewing just send the paragraph of text in a usable form and let the javascript be an optional upgrade. |
|
|
| ▲ | 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | fragmede 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| "Certifiably insane" to enable JavaScript, which was invented in 1995, or install an app, which first happened on the Palm series of smartphones in 1996. Either of those are "certifiably insane"? For reference, the term neurodiversity was coined circa 1998. |
| |
| ▲ | serf 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Neither the invention date or the mental health terminology have anything to do with the fact that js being commonplace is a privacy and security nightmare -- which was actually the point. | | |
| ▲ | micromacrofoot 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | JavaScript asceticism is a weird trend that has just never died out, no one treats any other language this way... and "privacy and security nightmare" can be used to describe most of the internet at this point with or without it | | |
| ▲ | swiftcoder 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > JavaScript asceticism is a weird trend that has just never died out, no one treats any other language this way I'm not aware of any other language that is layered on top of a perfectly serviceable user-facing content delivery syntax? | | |
| ▲ | alt227 12 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Literally any scripting language? I have managed to get 35 years into a sysadmin career without knowing or writing a single line of python. I see a python script, I run a million miles away and wont touch it with a barge pole. |
| |
| ▲ | tomrod 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It can certainly come across as a "weird trend" but I've found that the most insistent for disabling JS are the folks who have deep knowledge of browsers and the security plane running webapps. YMMV. | | |
| ▲ | micromacrofoot 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | I don't drive a car because I have deep knowledge of mortality statistics, but I don't complain when I can't easily get somewhere 100 miles away | | |
| ▲ | Dylan16807 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Showing a paragraph of text with some social links around it is like going down the block. If that requires a car you do have a problem. | | |
| ▲ | micromacrofoot an hour ago | parent [-] | | yeah but it's an extreme fringe choice... I too make extreme fringe choices but I don't expect 99.9% of the people who don't make my extreme fringe choice to change on my behalf hell, use a browser in a sandbox if you're that paranoid there are a number of ways to do this securely, at this point it's practically a child's tantrum but sure maybe it just needs a couple more decades of complaining in obscure comment sections and everyone will finally get it and switch back to mailing lists | | |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | kevin_thibedeau an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | JS is a vector for browser exploits and privacy invasion. No other language is commonly used for these things. | | |
| ▲ | alt227 9 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Not even things like batch files and visual basic scripts on windows? Everyone seems to forget we had decades of dodgy scripts and activex controls in our browsers for years before javascript became the thing it is today. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | mdp2021 an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | JS or installing special software to view HTTP served text from the web?! Yes, that makes no sense at all. |
|
