The scriptless web

Practically no loss. The vast, vast majority of web resources I use are usable in a text mode browser already. I'd bet that 8ch works fine on Links though I've never tried. Maybe I'd keep some SBCs or chinkdroids e.g. for banking, shopping, viewing trash websites when the need arises, etc.

what kind of autism are you on, you cock sucking faggot
you just stated that 98% of websites are programmed with JS. while that may be true, it ignores the fact that not even 1% of them actually remotely have a valid reason to use JS

Nice reading comprehension, buddy. I mentioned those things in response to what someone else wrote. If you could actually read, you'd know that.

They mentioned a browser "that has bindings to applications for viewing/playing multimedia"

you sound like a black millennial with a hint of autism. it's not an issue because i don't have a phone, and the subject of this thread is web browsers, not phones

The web doesn't cater to privacy-valuing people and it never will. JS makes frontend and SPA stuff easy, but you and a lot of privacy-oriented people think it's okay to have web design standards from the 90s. Here's the thing: even though this board is an echo chamber of neckbeards who want websites to be as unprofitable as possible, foregoing ads and tracking which make them money, the fact of the matter is that the web isn't going to bend over backwards just to meet the demands of some dude with asperger's syndrome.

Whether you like it or not, people who have websites want to make money, and privacy-centric design is not conducive to profit. If you can come up with a viable freetard business model, then you can solve the issue of privacy. But until then, there will be Cloudflare, recaptcha, and Google Analytics everywhere.

You don't have a phone and you're calling other people autistic? Oh man.

What are you even arguing for?

HTA is a mistake that could only be conceived by Microsoft. But yeah, this shit is why you actually remove IE if you use Windows.
Even being disconnected from webdev, I had to learn through using uMatrix. That's what I meant by full autism. A niche engine that purposefully ignores this, so the functionality can be replicated with client-side scripting later if it gets to that stage.
No software is immune to bugs and most of it is full of holes. What I have in mind is, by separating these parts into separate programs, you can sandbox and restrict the shit out of audio/video players and image viewers, while leaving the browser largely untouched.

Privacy is an issue of business, not just JavaScript. This board isn't an indication of what most people are like. Most people are fine with JS and tracking and all that jazz. They don't know or care.

Privacy isn't just invaded for fun, it's done to make money. Ads and data mining. All businesses want to make money, and most websites are businesses, not just for fun. They have operating costs and all. Unless you're a NEET, life is expensive.

What I'm saying is that, if you can come up with a business model that respects privacy, everything else will fall into place. NoScript won't change the fact that more and more website really require JS in order to work. Freetards consistently fail to come up with privacy-oriented business models.

what the fuck is .hta? some mac shit? why am i executing code because the file extension changed? the tool is stupid, not the user. literally no file manager on linux will execute code by double clicking on a file
4chan had a captcha since at least 2006 you fucking meme. and no that's not the reason. the reason is to prevent automatic posting, just like every other captcha
correct
no, i wouldn't. none of the retarded bullshit webdevs have done since ruby, hell perl/cgi, has surprised me
kill self
correct, meanwhile the entire web _is_ a security issue and physical health issue

are you trolling or just dumb?
wrong (unix-like OSes can infer a file type based on its shebang/content type sniffing, and can figure out what to do with it even based on its contents rather than filetype), but I get what you meant to say, which is that you think it won't execute code from an image file -- but that's also wrong, because there are image viewer exploits