That doesn't make any sense. Javascript is not required to use HTTP. You can just turn off Javascript in any web browser, it's not a reason to switch to another protocol.
The other protocol buys you a guarantee that the sites available on it are designed for your use case, rather than trying to chop stuff designed for the web to fit into your subset with mixed success.
No it doesn't, those sites could very easily still be stupid, boring, wrong, offensive, dishonest, or otherwise time-wasting. I don't see how the presence or absence of Javascript has any effect on the content which is what you actually care about.
Unless of course, you are like some Hacker News commenters and you seemingly only use the internet to complain about Javascript, in which case that appears to be a circular and self-fulfilling requirement you've created for yourself.
If JS had no effect on the experience of the page (or the loading of it) then no one would write it. Personally, I don't generally mind running a bunch of JS but I understand why people don't. I use both the modern web and Gemini
I do too which is why I said just turn off javascript. You can try to compare this to running gopher but if you ask me the end user experience is the same.
John wants to visit a website of a business. John likes having Javascript turned off. John visits the website with Javascript turned off. The website requires Javascript. John finds the website doesn't work and gives up.
John wants to visit a website of a business. John likes Gopher. John visits the website with a Gopher browser. The website requires HTTP. John finds the website doesn't work and gives up.
John wants to read a blog over HTTP. John reads the blog. There is a link. It is to a social media website. He clicks on the link. The social media website requires JavaScript. John has no context for the blog he was reading, and is saddened by the fact that his experience has been ruined.
John wants to read a blog over Gopher. John reads the blog. There is a reference to another piece of content. It is either made to work with the form or is self-contained, so as to be usable in the context of a Gopher browser. John is happy.
A platform's total capabilities matter, because there will be links to the edges of its capabilities. If you have a blog over Gopher, you probably aren't going to link to a JavaScript-heavy site, because an author posting over Gopher is more likely to be ideologically-opposed to JavaScript. If you have a blog over HTTP, you probably are.
>A platform's total capabilities matter, because there will be links to the edges of its capabilities. If you have a blog over Gopher, you probably aren't going to link to a JavaScript-heavy site, because an author posting over Gopher is more likely to be ideologically-opposed to JavaScript. If you have a blog over HTTP, you probably are.
No I don't agree. If you have a HTTP blog where you go on tirades about how Javascript is bad, you probably won't post links to web sites that use Javascript either. I've seen people who actually do this. It's the same thing, there's no value added by using another platform which has nothing to do with it. You know you can also put HTTP links in a gopher site, and vice versa? They're just text. Either way you have no way of knowing what kind of links the blogger will share until you actually read the blog.
What you're more concerned about is actually the intention and motives of the blog operator, not the platform. If you believe Gopher is good at being an indicator of that because by this point it's become very insular and self-contained and all the users are bitter about outside things, I've also seen HTTP blog communities that are that way too. Gopher sites are not the only places where you can find blog rings. Hope that's helpful to your activities.
You're deliberately applying the least intelligent light you can to everyone in this thread's comments.
With Gopher, you don't have to worry about whether someone is ideologically-opposed to JavaScript, and you don't have to only read the works of people who write about being ideologically opposed to JavaScript.
>You're deliberately applying the least intelligent light you can to everyone in this thread's comments.
No I'm not, please stop assuming bad faith. This is from my actual experience over decades. I'm sorry but there's nothing special about any particular choice of protocol. Many years ago I would have been making the same exact presumptions as you, but I can tell you they're wrong. Like, really just fundamentally wrong, and based on a set of nonsensical ideas about the structure and role of protocols within networks.
If you think I'm making an oversimplification about javascript, I think you've missed the point: that's exactly what I was responding to from a parent reply. I didn't apply that light. Please go read the full reply chain and the first reply I was commenting on, to see what I mean. I'm not joking around here, I've actually witnessed this several times with people going in on this stuff and then linking their alt blogs which end up being completely full of ranting about javascript or iphones or NFTs or systemd or something. My point is that it's actually wrong to assume you're going to get any particular content just because you used some network protocol.
In reality, I totally respect that you're an intelligent and reasonable adult so I'm not going to sugarcoat it: what you're saying is bunk and I think you should reconsider. That's me being honest and not trying to mess with you. I don't care if it makes me unpopular on some internet forum. I also don't care if you're personally invested in this or not. You deserve to have an honest and open discussion about the facts so you can make an informed choice about whether to get further invested in a possibly bad (or good) idea. I gain nothing from lying to you, I want you to find the truth that you seek. If you still disagree with me, great. Nothing wrong with that.
>With Gopher, you don't have to worry about whether someone is ideologically-opposed to JavaScript, and you don't have to only read the works of people who write about being ideologically opposed to JavaScript.
If you want to avoid people who link to HTTP and javascript sites and who only link to other things that "work with the form" then yes you still do. Was that not your original concern?
>Your solution isn't a solution at all.
I agree. My point is, neither is isolating yourself with another protocol that fundamentally can't even attempt to be a solution.
