I don’t know who the author of this proposal is, but I believe this should not be pursued and that his idea is uninformed.
Content blockers try their best do block and remove specific parts of the web page, surgically identifying them. You can’t just randomly block stuff and therefore break an insane amount of websites and call it a day.
What about web apps? Should there be a «this application wants to exceed the xMB quota» confirmation messages? Oh please no.
You should be making your pages work without javascript. Progressive enhancement has been a best-practice for years.
I routinely use the fast JS switcher extension to turn off javascript on any site that does any number of irritating things (popups, autoplay videos, etc.) If those sites don’t work any more, then I just never visit them again. Their loss.
> What about web apps?
I think it's important to make this distinction. A lot of websites don't need the JavaScript they ship with to present the material the users want. I agree those websites should work without JavaScript.
However, you can't expect actual web applications to do this.
Examples
- https://www.audiotool.com/app/ (sign in required; demo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvIu_R8bmdA)
- https://human.biodigital.com/signin.html (sign in required; demo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dW4JSMlBhWQ)
Other more commonly know examples
- Most of Google Drive offerings
- Google Analytics control panel
- Twitch
I see this confusion a lot when this topic is discussed on HackerNews.
Webapps can be implemented just fine without Javascript; I’ve been doing it for years. React is a luxury, not a requirement, and progressive enhancement is a thing in all but the most demanding apps.
The point is, I currently exist in a world where I randomly shut off all javascript on websites, and it’s a happy world. Personally, I’d be tickled pink if it was a built-in browser feature (and if it forced web devs to be more responsible? Bonus!)