I accepted cookies, watched an ad, dismissed a popup for a newsletter to watch a video about ads.
That really nails it.
That really nails it.
If a page wants to cover itself in noise and dialogues, sure it’s annoying but it’s not quite on the same level as back then.
Today we know that there's no genuine question of user control here, because virtually every user has a mental model that a "webpage" is something different and much more scope-limited than a "program". I don't expect that steampowered.com should be able to launch the game I just bought, even though that capability is easily available from a similar-looking interface by the same developers I have installed on my computer. In 1995 it wasn't so obvious that people in 2025 would think this way.
After all, entrepreneurs can and will abuse anything and everything in this world.
We wouldn't need to bother with installing addons to limit javascript and block ads if those were just part of the browser to start with. Every new feature added should have options that put users in control of if, when, and how it gets used. Right now, even the browsers that give users the most control usually don't go farther than an enable/disable flag in about:config
We have the browser (and extension) people to thank for this of course, not advertisers who would still be doing it if they could.
I wonder if things would actually be better overall. I’m not going to argue that having a scripting language for the web was a mistake, it definitely isn’t on the whole, but I think having it come at a more mature point for the web might have helped stave off a lot of really bad decisions
I wish to think all these things exist in a alternative universe and we've just not constructed the time-portal yet.
Also, java's dominance I guess was the reason that javascript is named after inspiration of java.
What you are asking for are static pages which already exists and most people do use static pages due to it being very easy to deploy on github pages etc. , though I wonder we would've way more abundance of static pages as compared to non static pages, like there are some pages which could've been static but they aren't.
Though I still think the difference would've existed & it could've been net positive IDK, I just like to go create websites as apps which can be booted on any pc,device without worrying about anything, installing and running it would likely require a setup and it would've been a bigger hassle as well.
And well noone's stopping you from doing it right now. There's gopher and gemini if you are interested.
Very loosely, was named that was as an marketing ploy as Java was the new language at the time.
JavaScript is actually ECMAScript or a v.close direlect of. Originally it was called Mocha, and then relabeled to LiveScript and during the NetScape / Sun Microsystems thing, changed itself to JavaScript and Oracle carried it on from there.
It has some quite interesting history. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JavaScript#History
There’s nothing preventing me from adding globs of nightmare JavaScript to my static website to try and chase engagement.
What’s stopping the people making static pages is not technical, it’s cultural.
Nothing like 3 paragraphs of text that requires downloading 2 megabytes of crap, runs code from 20 sketchy looking domains, takes 15 seconds to load, cannot be linked to, and demands you upgrade your browser. As a consolation you can have slightly slower maps in browser instead of downloading an app, once.
I think web scripting is probably THE worst technology ever invented in the IT field. "If I ruled the world", a full ban would be better than its current state; or some AMA on steroids (+Jones act) making JavaScript developers extremely rare and well paid, so that it was limited to the best (as determined by the market) uses with better quality.
Folks forget that before js was front-end frameworks and libaries, it was enabling (as in, making impossible possible) async data requests and page updates without requiring a full round-trip and repaint.
It's difficult to conceptualize a present where that need was instead fully served by HTML+CSS, sans executable code sandbox.
What, ~2000 IE instead pushes for some direct linking of HTML with a async update-able data model behind the scenes? How are the two linked together? And how do developers control that?
Imagine instead if HTML evolved more in the direction of enabling this exact scenario out of the box. So that e.g. you could declaratively mark a button or a link as triggering a request that updates only part of the page. DOM diffs implemented directly by the browser etc.
Or in this hypothetical is the remote server always directly sending HTML?
If we're unwinding back to early 00s though, it could also be fetching XML from the server and then running it through the XSLT stylesheet associated with the current document to convert it to HTML, to reduce the amount of data on the wire.
The specifics could be debated here. But I'm pretty sure that a generic mechanism could be devised that'd adequately cover many use cases that require JS today.
It seemed so at the time but I think it didn't work out... Why is interesting to speculate about... My pet theory that convenient frameworks lowering the barriers were part of the problem.
I think if at it's time JavaScript went the way of java applets and ActiveX controls (and yes I understand part of the reason these could be driven out is availability of JavaScript), web would be in a much better shape right now. 90% of the apps (banking, email, forums, travel, etc) and 100% of the pages would just be plain better. For the remainder you'd just install an app, something they nag you about anyway.
Otherwise, with just CSS and HTML, you'd have a web strictly dedicated to publishing. A read only experience curated by those who are willing to invest the time and tooling into being a publisher.
Even then with the advent of RSS and other data exchange formats it's arguable we didn't even need that part of the web. It would be far better for publishing to deliver headlines and summaries via RSS and then allow me to purchase full content and issues digitally.
I think the bigger complication in the creation of the web was the complete lack of payment systems and user trust in entering their payment information into these platforms. So only the large well moneyed entities like advertisers were willing to absorb that risk and built out the platform. Instead of us conveniently and safely paying creators for content we now have aggressive advertisers who litter the web so publishers can shake pennies out of the CPM tree.
Everything is perfectly static and linear, and instead of popups we get full-page ads, double-full-page ads sometimes, and ad inserts in the rest of the pages, with stealth marketing for the content left.
The fundamental issue is not technology IMHO. Scripting can make it worse, but it wouldn't have been great in the first place.
There are accidents of history, money, and ideology.
These things fit squarely in the money category. The advertising industry was subsumed by adtech during that time, which was driven by government grant and fiat debt-based financing. Advertising fraud has never been harder to account for, and the justified use of analytics for that purpose has driven surveillance capitalism with governments being the customer.
Money printing is the role of the state, so technically if you remove all indirections its state apparatus which makes sense that an individual wouldn't be able to fight against it.
A group of people who thought that web users should not be abused may have won the first pop-up battle, but the businesses that made money from intrusive advertisements clearly won the war.
In hindsight maybe it wasn't a such a great idea for web users to switch en masse to a browser made by an advertising company.
The endgame is a probably a war between web sites that are endless mazes of advertising and user agents that try to navigate the maze and extract the non-advertising content.
I’m not trying to correct you. It’s just a sequence of events I’ve seen play out repeatedly and I’m not sure if there’s a solution. Most recently I’ve seen it with Bambu Lab locking down their 3D printers. Prior to that Autodesk yanking the Fusion 360 enthusiast licenses.
Maybe there isn’t a solution. There’s a lot of UX work that isn’t fun to do and so it’s hard to get volunteers to do it. It’s hard to do product management in a distributed group of volunteers in general. So, companies that can afford to bankroll projects often gain traction with performance or usability gains and suck away attention and funding from open source options. Then when they amass enough of the user base they flip the switch and now folks are stuck. The cost of changing is often prohibitively high and the OSS option is generally far behind at that point.
I think people are bad at thinking longer term. Or maybe they just prefer immediate gratification. In any event, absent a shift in human behavior I expect we’ll see this sort of situation to continue to play out. It’d just be nice if folks were less antagonistic about it when those concerned raise that alarm.
"I'm sorry Dave, but I am unable to accept requests that oppose Google's business interests."
"Well, send it to ChatGPT then!"
"Sure thing. Here is your... 5 second video:"
(Video) "Hey what's up? Be sure to like and subscribe." (end of video)
javascript:/*https://bookmarkl.ink/ashtonmeuser/849a972686e1505093c6d4fc5c6e0b1a*/(()%3D%3E%7Bvar%20e%2Co%3Ddocument.querySelectorAll(%22body%20*%22)%3Bfor(e%3D0%3Be%3Co.length%3Be%2B%2B)getComputedStyle(o%5Be%5D).position%3D%3D%3D%22fixed%22%26%26o%5Be%5D.parentNode.removeChild(o%5Be%5D)%3B%7D)()%3B%0A
"I'm watching a video about procrastination... and I've got a test tomrrow! Lolol!"
Obviously your comment is the refined HN equivalent, but still.