@aral that's a fine distinction. As a developer, you're in a better position than I am to know. But you'll need to convince me. Because it seems to me that outsourcing processing work to the user's PC - via JS black boxes - is exactly how #SurveillanceCapitalism achieves massive scale, while claiming that #ThereIsNoAlternative to centralized server infrastructure. A myth they've propagated so effectively that even many developers have started believing it:
@danjones fair points. But privacy is only a subset of a much larger concern, which is about *control*. Putting aside the argument we could have over the "black box" part of my post, the fact remains that:
> outsourcing processing work to the user's PC - via JS - is exactly how #SurveillanceCapitalism achieves massive scale, while claiming that #ThereIsNoAlternative to centralized server infrastructure.
@danjones There are many possible strategies for redecentralizing, and resolving the *many* problems with JS, some of which are described here:
@strypey @danjones @alcinnz Maybe the FSF should worry more about its logo appearing next to Google’s as they sponsor the same events than some ridiculous and ill-informed stance against a programming language that spreads FUD about potential alternatives. Remember that an AGPLv3 licensed app specifically built for drones to send hellfire missiles to little children would get the FSF seal of approval. Free Software is just a component of ethical tech but doesn’t care about ethics of use cases.
@aral I share your concerns about open source events being sponsored by Google, as do FSF, but they can't control this. As for approving of child-killing drone software, that's FUD worthy of Microsoft. FSF have often spoken out about the use of freely-licensed code to do much less anti-social things than that:
@aral I finished reading this article today, after starting it yesterday, and reposting it so anyone following my account on the birdsite gets it, as well as those on the fediverse. It's a good overview. I didn't say JS is the enemy, I argued that it ought to be opt-in, so that:
a) users can protect themselves from the harms it is already known to do
b) web designers are incentivized to use it only when it's really needed, not use it to add trackers etc to what ought to be static pages
@aral if JS was opt-in, people would opt-in when that made sense in their use case, or use a native app when that made sense. Much less bad JS would be written because it can't be slid in under the door and run in someone's browser without their informed consent. It would be good for users, good for native apps, and good for JS.
If you're afraid of lack of JS hurting you, I encourage you to write good <noscript> messages promoting the native apps.
P.S. As you should well know from Better there's plenty of Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt to be had around what JS is doing.
P.P.S. I have read your blogpost.
This is my personal Mastodon.