Umm... no. That sounds absolutely awful in several ways. I just believe the web is about choice, and users shouldn&#x27;t be expected to use the exact setup that the service providers demand. You can avoid a huge class of vulnerabilities by disabling javascript, not to mention all the privacy benefits of doing so. With javascript disabled, all trackers can collect is a timestamped log of when you made what request — which is sensitive information, but not as bad as also having your cursor movements and scrolling and everything else logged. Disabling javascript can also massively improve performance.<p>That doesn&#x27;t mean that websites shouldn&#x27;t use javascript — I&#x27;d not want to use a todo list application that forces me to reload the page on every click — but it&#x27;s still useful to support that functionality, because some day I might need to access my todos from an environment where I can&#x27;t use javascript for whatever reason.<p>People claim that it&#x27;s too much work to support something so niche, but if you architect your application well, using progressive enhancement, you get support for no-javascript environments, plus a ton of other stuff like server-side prerendering for latency reduction, accessibility, SEO, text-based browser functionality — all virtually for free.<p>Not that this should be applied everywhere dogmatically, it&#x27;s not worth supporting no-javascript environments or scrapers in your browser-based photo editor.<p>It would be even better if servers would return raw data in xml format, with a linked xslt transform to convert it to a structured document, and css to manage the presentation with javascript to control the interactivity, but that idea died long ago, but some modern applications are finally replicating most of the good parts of that system.