[pluc]

There's absolutely no need for JavaScript on a page that has a text input and two buttons and that has worked without JS for three decades. Given Google's reputation for privacy and the constant attempts at selling their users out, it's fair to assume that the reason they're requiring JavaScript is not noble.

[orf]

> There's absolutely no need for JavaScript on a page that has a text input and two buttons

The whole web is evil then. Hacker news has JavaScript for simple upvote buttons, is it also evil?

[EvanAnderson]

HN is usable w/o JavaScript. It doesn't block my access because I choose not to allow it to execute arbitrary code on my computer.

[gnfargbl]

* execute arbitrary code in one of the best studied sandboxes on the planet, which happens to be running on your computer.

[hedora]

… and is an extension of the largest surveillance apparatus ever built by mankind.

[desdenova]

> which happens to be running on your computer.

not if you turn it off

[_Algernon_]

Voting works for HN without js. Just forces a page refresh.

[bmacho]

Hackernews don't require javascript for upvote buttons. They work without it.

BTW hackernews requires javascript for collapsing threads, despite it can be achieved with checkbox/css or with the summary element. The reddit frontend teddit used it, and it worked really well. HN is basically the same as reddit, so it would work really well for HN too.

[pluc]

I don't disagree with you. I use NoScript which lets me selectively enable every JS source a site has ever since marketers and advertisers have weaponized it, and you'd be surprised what you find and what works with minimal JS. If anything, it's very educational.

[elicksaur]

You miss the point. non-necessity =/= evil, but it does require a non-evil reason. JavaScript could be used on a site for some neat rendering or game where it’s necessary to do that neat thing. Without such a need, the person is inferring the change now is likely nefarious based on other actions from the same company and their motives.

I’m not necessarily agreeing with the OP, but I can understand their point without naively misconstruing it.

[bolognafairy]

Okay. But is it evil?

[jazzyjackson]

It's a well intentioned bolt on for adding reactivity without reloading the page, but it's been hijacked by the ad industrial complex to keep tabs on your behavior for people who do not have your best interests in mind. that usage of it, I would say, qualifies for a weak definition of evil.

[KronisLV]

For argument's sake, yes, unironically: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.html

In contrast, this is less evil: https://www.gnu.org/software/librejs/

But as usual, nobody really cares because it’s also useful and convenient, even if there’s a bunch of ad crap and fingerprinting and tracking and other stuff, basically taking away more and more control over how you want to consume the contents of a site, same as DRM.

Contrast that to a static site (or a server side rendered one to a lesser degree) which is more like a newspaper - if you have it, you can read it, cut out bits that you’re interested in, stash them away for safe keeping etc.

The more nuanced answer is that most technologies aren’t inherently evil or good but it depends on how they’re used. Even then the answer still leans towards “yes”.

[eth0up]

Whether it's evil or not is a difficult question. I'd say it's at least as bad as satan, considering we can actually confirm its existence. But that it arose naturally from this grotesque universe means it is a valid part of things. Maybe it is we who are evil and it that punishes us.

[_Algernon_]

Yes