> Unbelievable. Now we're to be angry at (or at least, suspicious of) Eich for inventing Javascript? Because... it can used for evil? Is that really a path we should be going down? Is Tim Berners-Lee next? Come on.
There is literally no good case for JavaScript. It's literally malware: code that runs on your machine without your explicitly installing it and does things that serves the website, not the user. The fact that it's in a sandbox to limit the harm it can cause is nice, but it doesn't really solve the fundamental problem.
Formats such as social media profiles, recipes, etc., would have been better served as document formats separate from or included in HTML.
More complex things like Google Maps could have been done as native apps--and still are, because the web app simply can't provide the same level of experience as a native app.
> They started trying to solve the problem of facilitating an advertising model that respects privacy and rewarding creators (users) with revenue in the form of BAT tokens.
If I want to reward a creator I can pay them without a middle man: BAT complicates that rather than simplifying it.
Advertising is a social harm. An advertising model that respects privacy, still disrespects attention, bandwidth, power usage, etc.
It should be clear that content creators aren't browser's target users, but since you brought it up: advertising generally creates a race to the bottom which incentivizes low-quality, low-effort content creation which creates a filtering problem: now it's hard to find the high-quality content amid the half-assed AI-generated nonsense. Publications which are high enough quality to be paid for, such as the NYT, have obviously been harmed by ad-based business models becoming the norm.
> Say what you want about the execution, or the idea in general — but it's a noble goal.
Their goal is to make money, and they've set it up so that their goal of making money is dependent on pleasing advertisers, not users.
The noble goals you're claiming simply are not true.