[robalni]

The differences between the browser I'm currently using and a random website with javascript on the web are:

- The browser's source code is available so I can see what it does.

- The browser is distributed by Debian who also distribute most other software I use so there is 1 organization to trust instead of 1000.

- The browser is not downloaded and executed and upgraded automatically, so it's possible for me to know what code runs and doesn't run on my computer.

- There are multiple browsers I can choose from. I can't choose which javascript to use when I visit a website.

- I can modify the browser if I want it to work differently (which I have actually done). It's harder to modify the javascirpt on a website because it's updated every time and very tied to the rest of the site and is often unreadable.

- Modifications can be distributed, so if I make a better version, other people can use it and forget about the original version if it was bad.

[whakim]

I guess I understand (and respect) the argument that you only want to run code that you can vet and easily modify. But I don't think most people feel that way - I think most people expect that they're getting some service (like a browser) by allowing developers to execute arbitrary code they've built on their device. I therefore don't think javascript is abusive in the way you describe it, because it follows the paradigm people expect and want out of their software.

[robalni]

> I guess I understand (and respect) the argument that you only want to run code that you can vet and easily modify

This is not about me. It doesn't matter what most people feel or what they want to do. It's the situation where people are expected to run often invisible code written by untrustable people that is wrong. People should have the right to know and control what their computer is doing, even if they don't want to use that right. The current situation doesn't allow them to have that right.

> I think most people expect that they're getting some service (like a browser) by allowing developers to execute arbitrary code

The problem is that it's too easy for developers to use other peoples' computers for their own benefit when the current situation of the web is that people automatically let random people on the internet run code on their computers. It happens all the time. That's why they should not have this freedom.

[whakim]

This is purely about your preferences. You're arguing for a world in which the vast majority of people give up something they really like in exchange for something they really don't care about. "Abusive" is quite literally the wrong term because the exchange (you run arbitrary code on my device, I get software I want to use) is helpful to most people, not harmful.

[robalni]

> the vast majority of people give up something they really like

I don't know what you mean that people like exactly but it's definitely possible to let people use software in fair ways so they don't have to give up anything. A lot of times the use of javascript is unnecessary so removing it doesn't make any difference for the user.

> the exchange (you run arbitrary code on my device, I get software I want to use) is helpful to most people, not harmful

It doesn't matter that the exchange is helpful if it happens in an unfair way. Compare this to prostitution. It's illegal (at least the other side of it) in many countries. But everyone involved gets what they want or need and the exchange is helpful to everyone, so why is it illegal? I guess it's because some people just think it's wrong and that it's an exchange that can't happen in a fair way even if everyone involved is happy with it.

[easrng]

Modifying websites with userscripts, userstyles, and extensions is wayyyy easier than modifying native apps IMO, especially if they aren't open source.

[robalni]

The problem with modifying javascript is that it is very dependent on the website so the modified version can stop working at any time. I can't write a javascript program for a website and then use it forever just like I can write a text editor and use it forever.

[danaris]

Any Javascript your browser runs is, by definition, available for you to see what it does.

[robalni]

It's usually distributed in an unreadable format and even if I'm able to read it, it may change the next time I visit the website without any notice, so I would have to read it every time I visit unless I want to risk using and outdated version that will stop working soon.