you're absolutely correct that, unless the website is yours, you won't be in control. that's the point of the discussion, and of the free software movement: when a program is doing your computing, you should be in control.

of the web apps that you mentioned in another post, some do communication/collective computing, but those that do your computing shouldn't be web apps at all. that they are a tool of oppression and control.

now, this conversation started about a website whose goal is (presumed to be) making security information available to others. it's about publishing, not anyone reader's computing. but the computing that the server wishes to impose on users is not the users' computing either; users should be allowed to reject that abuse of their computing resources. but if that implies that the site won't make the information available to users who make that choice, the site is failing its purpose of making the information available.

now, if the site is a tool of control, sure, it will impose unnecessary and undesirable computing on users and demand them to disable their web firewalls and make themselves vulnerable in order to get access to the security information. see the problem there?

note I'm not saying the site must not offer interactive possibilities using JavaScript. what I'm saying is that the site should degrade gracefully and offer the information, that's what users are after, even if they won't lower their shields. it's not that hard, unless developers are determined to make it impossible. and if they do, we must wonder why they do.

CC: @tennoseremel@lor.sh