[UqWBcuFx6NV4r]

It’ll be a run-on effect of whatever framework they are using, and they very justifiably don’t want to bother catering to you. Having JS disabled in 2026 and complaining about sites not behaving is simply a performative act.

[GoblinSlayer]

2015: It's a SPA blog because my employer forced me to do it that way, I didn't want it.

2026: It's a SPA blog because I very justifiably don't want to bother catering to you. Having JS disabled in 2026 and complaining about sites not behaving is simply a performative act.

[lazide]

It’s basic self defense. Who runs around the web in 2026 allowing random JS? Might as well be licking seats on the subway.

[Telaneo]

> Who runs around the web in 2026 allowing random JS?

Within a rounding error, 100% of people on the internet.

[lazide]

It’s a lot higher pct when you count vpns with JS filtering, ad blockers, etc.

[Telaneo]

Even then, they're using disallow lists. If you go on a random web page with novel JS, then that'll still be run.

The only people working of allow lists are the people running NoScript and the like, and those truly aren't running random JS. But those people are a rounding error compared to the greater internet.

[lmm]

If you trust your browser it's fine, and if you don't then both CSS and SVG are significantly more risky.

[margalabargala]

This isn't true at all.

Anything SVG does maliciously, it does by containing JavaScript, so SVG's worst case is a subset of JS's.

[fc417fc802]

Remind me again what the ratio of browser sandbox escapes coupled with full RCE is between JS, CSS, and SVG?

[sysguest]

> then both CSS and SVG are significantly more risky.

how???

[akimbostrawman]

>and they very justifiably don’t want to bother catering to you

Considering they are one of the very few sites and VPNs that allow sign up without JS your claim is verifiably false. They also collaborate with and develop there own tor browser fork which has the highest rate of non JS user.