[c-hendricks]

I really feel like this genre of comment should fall under this "don't" from the HN guidelines:

> Please don't complain about tangential annoyances—e.g. article or website formats, name collisions, or back-button breakage. They're too common to be interesting.

You're willingly disabling a part of web atandards.

[zahlman]

The web really doesn't, and shouldn't, depend on these things. I use a JavaScript whitelisting tool, so that I can allow JavaScript on pages where it's merited, when the trust for that functionality has been earned. Nowadays it's used for things that have been possible in plain HTML for decades. In this case, text has been added to HTML that causes otherwise visible text not to display, presumably so that it can fade in or do some slide-show effect or who knows what else. My annoyance with these things is hardly "tangential"; it smacks me in the face multiple times a day.

[sevg]

If you allowlist javascript then yes your annoyance is tangential, and no it is not interesting for us to read you complain about. Hence why the HN guideline (that was quoted above) exists.

(I also allowlist javascript. Regardless of your philosophical standpoint, many websites do break. If you don’t want “smacks me in the face multiple times a day” then stop allowlisting javascript.)

[perching_aix]

Comments whinging about this are not any more interesting to read either, even if they do not break discussion guidelines themselves.

Use the flag button. This is what it's for.

[sevg]

Interesting choice of word; I wasn’t whinging, just trying to explain to the other commenter something useful. Flagging gives zero detail or nuance. Which presumably is why you replied instead of flagging my comment ;)

[perching_aix]

No, that'd be because your comment, for better or for worse, does not break guidelines, and because I frequently make the mistake of replying when I should have flagged as well.

Regarding helpful explanations, I really don't think they'd be unaware that allowing JavaScript wholesale would cease their run-ins with JS-dependent things not working, or that they wouldn't know their configuration was uncommon (thus ~definitionally tangential, as it makes them a minority). They are asserting that despite that, it should not be considered tangential (and that they do not consider it to be), for the reasons they list off (i.e. that there's no functional reason the site/page should depend on JS). I agree with this in the sense that I do think the topic and issue matters, but I disagree in the sense that it is absolutely a sidetrack to the blogpost itself. The word "tangential" is pulling a double duty like so in-context I'd say, and I think this is what they're trying to gesture at too.

Recounting that they're willfully running into issues like this is not useful. They have to know, and so this flagrantly sidesteps their point instead of invalidating it. Their complaining is inherently and knowingly performative and principled, as they're essentially engaging in activism with it. Even you and I are participating in this theatre; using the site guidelines and features as vehicles to make certain comments disappear / prevent them from appearing outright, or hammering on about them for the love of the game, alignment and discourse quality nonwithstanding. Whether or not participating in this way is entirely intentional though, I'm sure depends.

And personally, while I understand why this rule was placed into the guidelines, I do disagree with it; I think technical issues are not any less valid to discuss than anything else, although they are meta-commentary. The rule is also de facto perma broken in my experience, exactly because nobody actually flags for it.

[Sophira]

I get around this by pairing JavaScript allowlisting with custom CSS and userscripts. I shouldn't have to, though.

[charcircuit]

You are smacking your own face by disabling it. Instead of trying to get the entire world to conform to the requirements of your special browser, why won't you have your browser conform to the needs of the world.

[t-3]

I don't want pop ups, ads, cookies, gdpr nagging, tracking pixels, autoplaying videos or malicious exploits. If those are the requirements of the world to read a basic article, then fuck the world!

[c-hendricks]

I hear you, but only 2 of those things require JavaScript.

[autoexec]

none of them require JS, but that's how they're most commonly deployed. Getting rid of most of the worst things a website will typically force on you is a massive benefit when all it takes is a couple of clicks to whitelist the good websites.

[autoexec]

> You're willingly disabling a part of web atandards.

HN seems like the perfect place to talk about shitty web standards, shitty uses/implementations of them, and the negative impacts they're having on users in the wild. Solutions and workarounds should be welcome too.

There are lots of shitty things that are more common than they should be in this world, but those are the things we should be talking about and calling out when we see them. What good would it ever do anyone to just shut up about them?