[Someone1234]

People have the ability to decide what does and does not run on their machine. I'm sure a major motivation is to stop annoyances (e.g. ads, sounds, video players, etc).

That being said: There is a certain entitlement that comes along with it, while they're absolutely entitled to decide what runs on their machine, they have this expectation that sites should dedicate engineering/QA/time/etc to this niche. In essence give a sub-3% user base a disproportionate amount of attention. IE11 has a higher usage, and you likely shouldn't support that either.

Sites should both morally and legally support ADA users. But screen readers and other accessible technologies have had full JavaScript support for going on 20-years now. If you're spending energy/money on this no-JS cause, you're doing it for a small handful of contrarians who won't thank you.

[TomDavey]

> In essence give a sub-3% user base a disproportionate amount of attention.

Some comments in this thread are arguing that many less economically developed countries provide poorer connectivity and lesser bandwidth than elsewhere. Are the users in these countries truly "sub-3%" of the global user base? I honestly don't know.

Depends on the site, naturally, but it seems to me that devoting dev resources to serve users in less developed countries is a good thing. Wikipedia, for instance, renders essentially the same with or without Javascript. That helps to account for its vast international uptake, is my guess.