It&#x27;s 2016 and Hacker News, this very site, works fine w&#x2F;o JS (except for search). That&#x27;s how I&#x27;m using it right now. That&#x27;s how I&#x27;ve always used it.<p>I can access most of the sites I routinely visit without JS. E.g. The New York Times works <i>better</i> w&#x2F;o JS because it doesn&#x27;t block articles or count how many I&#x27;ve read.<p>And I don&#x27;t really care if you you will or will not try to hack me if I visit your site with JS on. There are countless other sites who <i>will try</i> exactly that, so why shouldn&#x27;t my default be &quot;NO&quot;? And if it&#x27;s not the sites themselves, it&#x27;s the shitty ad networks they all use; I don&#x27;t trust those at all.<p>IMO it&#x27;s the epitome of hipster arrogance to display <i>nothing useful</i> to people w&#x2F;o JS.