> You can take individual responsibility and disable JS by default.
Sure, you try explaining that to the general public, and why most of the sites they visit don't work anymore. It's hard enough to manage as a techie. This is the same argument snake oil purveyors use to complain about health and safety regulations, and it's silly for the same reasons.
> This is much more ethical than the European choice to bring in people with guns to coerce sites into behaving how they want.
Which GDPR violations have been met with armed agents?
I don't know about the public. That is many people I don't have control of. I do know that I can do it myself and it works fine and I can work around things.
I think this is true for many technical people. And I think doing this would encourage many of us to think of better ways to design and implement no-JS fallback functionality when making things for the public to use.
Just to refresh, the context of this sub-thread is about what people outside of the EU should do. Those living in the EU already subscribe to social policies based on positive liberty and can ignore discussions about individual responsibility for their behavior.
People really need to stop suggesting disabling Javascript as a solution. It’s not a solution.
First, it puts the blame on the victim. “Oh you got hacked? Should have turned off Javascript.” Stop blaming the victim. Browsers come with Javascript turned on by default and many sites expect Javascript will work, so it’s a reasonable expectation that users leave Javascript enabled.
Secondly there are a lot of devices that people access the web from. It’s not possible or easy to turn off Javascript on all platforms. If I ran my iPhone with Javascript disabled, every site I visited that needed Javascript would make me stop, go to Settings, scroll down to find Safari, scroll all the way to the bottom to find Advanced, then toggle the Javascript button. Then go back to Safari, view the site I wanted to see, then do it all over again to disable Javascript again. That’s not a reasonable workflow to even suggest.
Lastly... ah nevermind, I don’t actually want to know if you honestly believe anyone is enforcing GDPR with a gun. It’s not true in any way but it’s such a ludicrous statement that I honestly don’t even want to hear if you’re being serious or not. For my own mental health I will pretend you’re joking.
I'm reposting this reply to you because it makes my argument well. The other guy's "new" account got wiped out by it's new status and was easily downvoted away from people that can't read "dead" posts. Anyway, here it is:
People really need to stop suggesting using condoms as a solution. It’s not a solution.
First, it puts the blame on the victim. “Oh you got an STD? Should have used a condom.” Stop blaming the victim. Birthday suits don't come with condoms by default and many people expect unprotected sex, so it’s a reasonable expectation that people don't wear condoms.
Secondly there are a lot of places that people have SEX (Software EXchange). It’s not convenient to put on condoms in all places. If I used condoms when going to the local glory hole, every dick I sucked that needed a condom would make me stop, go to my bag, find my box of condoms, open one, and put it on him. Then go back to sucking dicks, bust this guy's nut, then go through the hassle of taking the condom off. That’s not a reasonable workflow to even suggest.
Lastly... ah nevermind, I don’t actually want to know if you honestly believe anyone is enforcing sex-after-marriage with a gun. It’s not true in any way but it’s such a ludicrous statement that I honestly don’t even want to hear if you’re being serious or not. For my own mental health I will pretend you’re joking.
