On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 06:26:20PM -0400, Celejar wrote: > On Sun, 18 Aug 2019 22:52:07 +0200 > <to...@tuxteam.de> wrote:
[... on disabling javascript] > Question: is this due to a belief that such sites are (at least for > your use cases) at best marginally more useful than their non-JS > utilizing alternatives, or due to a desire to punish such sites or an > ethical objection to them? I don't believe in punishment (to people, that is). Corps can't be punished, anyway. I just find this whole machinery (what Shoshana Zuboff [1] calls "surveillance capitalism") so disgusting that I choose to take as little part in it as is compatible with my way of life. Call this an "ethical position" if you must -- I tend to avoid such high-flying terms, because at the end everyone understands them differently, causing confusion. And yes, part of it is the realization that "convenience" doesn't top all -- through "convenience" [2], I'm being manipulated. That's the Trojan horse. I want to be aware of when this happens, and take those decisions in full knowledge. > I certainly need to use numerous sites (bill > paying, banking, etc.) that require JS to function. There's no clear-cut, generally valid thing here. I've the luck to live in a country (Germany) where an open protocol for banking exists (HBCI), and a free software implementing that protocol. So, thanks $DEITY, I just can do my bank things from the command line. There are other things (tax decl), where I've to use my browser, with javascript. This browser runs in a separate user session, with another user ID. "Be like water" :-) Cheers [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoshana_Zuboff [2] That's why I tend to not use NoScript and adblockers. I *really* want to know. I sometimes even do read the javascript which is not executed on my machine ;-D -- t
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
