Javascript is used by such a large percentage of sites that having it disabled is not a viable option for most people.
The point of these by-default protections is that they are supposed to work for most people. Suggesting that someone techie can do extra stuff that most people won't do is not really germane to the conversation.
Of course this depends on what sites you frequent, but you'd probably be surprised. I disable Javascript by default, I'd say 70-80% of the sites I visit load. An even larger percentage load with only 1st-party Javascript enabled.
I do think excessive required Javascript on the web is a problem, but I also think Hackernews overstates this problem sometimes, to the point where people think it's literally impossible to browse the web without Javascript.
I don't think that characterization is helpful, a lot of us browse the web every day without Javascript running by default. Most news sites are fine, high-end publications like the NYT actually tend to be pretty good at progressive enhancement. Lower-quality engineered sites like Kotaku won't load images, but the articles are still completely readable.
And to be clear, permanently enabling Javascript for a specific site in UMatrix only takes 2 mouse clicks.
> Suggesting that someone techie can do extra stuff that most people won't do is not really germane to the conversation.
I suspect at least 50% of Hackernews readers are smart enough to disable Javascript and selectively enable it when a site breaks. It's germane to the conversation in that those people might want an effective way to mitigate tracking.
I don't have to restrict myself to the lowest common denominator of features when I'm choosing a browser, and I don't think other users should need to either.
Of course raising the lowest common denominator is important, but if you really care about your own security and privacy, at some point you have to make technical decisions that go beyond that. I think it's relevant to the conversation to point out in a technical forum that those options exist for people who need them and can use them.
By “the conversation “I mean the conversation about firefox adding default protections against tracking. These are not intended for hacker news readers or techies. They are intended for the general public. And that is what I think the conversation is about.
The point of these by-default protections is that they are supposed to work for most people. Suggesting that someone techie can do extra stuff that most people won't do is not really germane to the conversation.