[kirion25]

I tend to agree on all your points. But when a site I need to browse does require JS, simply "turning it on" is, in my opinion, much too lax. You really need more granularity in managing javascript than the binary enable/disable feature available on browsers: namely javascript blocking extensions (noscript, umatrix, etc...). Being able to block 3rd party javascript is invaluable, for example.

[hilbert42]

> Absolutely agree. Earlier I attempted to reply to another post wherein I covered this issue but my post was too long so it wasn't posted. FYI, here's the extract which specifically deals with this issue (mind you, it's not a practical solution yet, for as far as I know no one has yet written the code to do the job):

" <...> As JavaScript has become so all pervasive, and with the rise of its even more insidious WebAssembly/Wasm derivative, it's easy to envision a not-too-distant Web where both have taken over—a Web where browsers will have access to very few or even no pages at all unless JavaScript is enabled. If this ever eventuates then I foresee a need for tailor-made JavaScript engines that would modify the way JavaScripts and Wasm work. 'Modified' JavaScript engines would have features that would allow their operational parameters to be reconfigured in quite powerful ways that would enable users to claw back control from websites, and they would do so in much more sophisticated ways than say NoScript or various ad blockers do now (in fact, these engines might even run their own user-defined add-ons).

Users could then gain the upper hand over websites by essentially feeding back any information that would satisfy a website or trackers; depending on the circumstance data could be accurate, part-accurate, part-obfuscated, misinformation or all or part randomized and tailored for all or just specific websites [right, it needs to be very flexible]. For example, all machine and O/S parameters could be obfuscated or scrambled, misinformation supplied such as saying ads were being displayed or clicked on when neither was the case, personal information scrambled or obfuscated and trackers supplied with misleading and deceptive junk. Furthermore, the process could be fully automated to allow users a smooth and unhindered Web-viewing experience.

If you think these suggestions harsh or unfair then I should not have to remind you that this is effectively what thousands of commercial websites and especially Big Tech—Google, Facebook et al—are already doing with your personal data (remember Cambridge Analytica?). Essentially, most users don't have a clue about the extent of the personal data that's collected from them by these websites nor of its contents or how it is actually processed nor do they know to whom it's sold. Moreover, websites unfairly vie for both users' attention and personal data by using tactics which are unethical, overly-invasive, highly-obfuscated and deceptive.

Whilst many users have yet to realize it, they're already in an undeclared war with websites and developers and especially Big Tech. The power imbalance already favors large websites with large resources and ready access to considerable funding, it's comparatively easy for them to refine and escalate their invasive processes as and when is necessary. Moreover, these practices are made much easier for websites to implement by the fact that netizens have little or no effective legislation to protect them against unfair practices, as with respect to such matters governments have long gone AWOL. It's very clear the odds are heavily stacked against ordinary Web users. Thus, given these circumstances, it's not at all unreasonable to expect users to have to deploy obfuscation and deception as quite legitimate countermeasures to protect both themselves and their data. We users desperately need tools such as a modified JavaScript engine to effectively even the playing field.

If website owners consider themselves hard done by my proposals in these comments—in the sense that they would not make sufficient income if they didn't force users to accept abusive JavaScript scripts, invasive ads, privacy hacks and trackers, not to mention having to commit the unacceptable practice of dangling irresistible and addictive 'baubles, bangles and beads' in front of those who are easily distracted and or addicted—then I'd suggest that the Web would be much better off without them. Let them go broke, their absence would only be beneficial in that there would be less network congestion for everyone else after they've gone. <...>"