It depends on how one works and what one has to do and or wants to achieve. I've pretty much worked the Web without say JavaScript since it was first released. In fact, I even used to turn off the 'scripts' setting in Internet Explorer it's that long ago.

Over that time I've become addicted to the raw speed of page rendering sans JS, similarly the lack of annoying 'jitters' and hesitations in page rendering that it causes. Same goes for the absence of ads, etc. In fact, I've rarely had need to recourse to ad-blockers as I see so few ads without JS enabled.

Is working without or with very limited JS use an impediment? For many it clearly it is because Big Tech and vested interests have forced the tech down the throats of users in places where its use is not essential. For me however the Web mostly sans JS is not a problem. I've used the Web since its inception and I do everything I want, and that's always been so.

Occasionally, I'm forced to use JS when purchasing something so I'll first determine what I want sans JS then clear caches etc. And sometimes I even switch browsers to make the purchase—I see no need to give these snoopers more data than absolutely necessary, I expect the same privacy online as I'd get from walking into a retail shop and paying cash. So should everyone.

Sites that force JS I back out of faster than entering them—there are plenty more fish in the sea so to speak—more than I can ever consume in my lifetime. For example, on news sites that force JS and block access there are others running the same stories that do not, only neophytes aren't aware of that.

I cannot think of one instance where I've been locked out of such info and not found an alternative source for not having used JavaScript.

Enabling and disabling JS is dead easy on my browsers, my JS icon is red when it's off and green when on. A single click changes the state and a page refresh reloads the page in whatever state I want, it's dead easy to work this way.

Same happens on my phones, when I buy a new phone it takes me some while before I even insert the SIM as I first have to delouse it of all the Google and vendor shit—there's not one Google service I use or have need to use, there are many alternatives, NewPipe, F-droid, etc., etc.

I've nothing against JS, only the way it's used and much abused. What's desperately needed are JS browser engines that allow users to manage its functionality, what it's allowed to do—to kill access to user data by default or as specified, and or supply randomized crap data back to snoopers and so on so that users can take back control of their Web browsing.

Your point is only valid if the user wants certain enhanced features which is not always the case. For example, information sites and government services etc. that convey essential information do not need JS, likewise they don't even need CSS.

Look at it this way: written text contains the same information whether it's displayed in system typeface fonts, courier monospace or Garamond. Sure, Garamond looks much nicer and fancier but it's not essential to convey information. Same goes for much of the other overrated and much abused internet standards.

Of course, that statement will cause you apoplexy if you're a web developer for two reasons, likely your income depends on it, and second it's a notion so foreign to and removed from internet developers' thinking/daily experience that it's inconceivable to them. Well, enough of us outside that circle are now thinking this way not to let the notion die. Perhaps also you're not old enough to remember when everything was simple and we got our information in system or courier typefaces. Those limitations did not stop users from doing the essentials. The new generation of Web developers either have never known that or have conviently forgotten the fact.

There are no satisfactory reasons why such websites (or all websites for that matter) cannot recognize browsers with only limited facilities available such as those having only HTML, or HTML/CSS sans JS and then automatically issuing pages that support those modes—that is, other than commercial/vested interests. And in a nutshell, that's the key problem.

The Web has become so dysfunctional, operationally stereotyped and so commercialized because of these vested interests that many now consider it broken and are calling for it to be fixed. Moreover, unlike the early Web, it's now so important that the mess it's now in cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely, thus government intervention will eventually be necessary to regulate it to ensure that all users have access (ensuring minimum connectivity standards etc. to allow all browsers—even text-only ones—to have access essential information) in the same way governments have had to regulate other essential services and utilities in the past.

…And regulation is not new to world history, it goes back centuries. Long ago, snail-mail was initially regulated by governments and then regularized by international convention, same with rail guages with most of the world now running on standard gauge. Then there are motoring regulations, it took many decades but most of the rules and road signage across the world are now very uniform because of government intervention then later strengthened through international conventions/agreements. Same with many other matters, weights and measures, the ISO, etc.

Right, in the past that LCD conformity took many years to achieve. That said, the internet/Web is only a few decades old, it also now exists in a world that's highly connected which makes it much more capable of adapting to a fast-changing world.

The only reasons why most internet and Web techies are hostile and or are horrified by the notion of tighter regulations are that they've grown up in an environment sans regulations, taking away freedoms always hurts, especially for those unscrupulous people who rort the system, steal user information, etc.

The railway barons of the 19th Century thought the same but every country now has strict regulations governing railways from technical and safety requirements to rules governing ownership—and many of these regulations came into existence because operators/owners abused their privileges.

We're now seeing consumers (and thus lagging governments) catching up, and that's about time. Unfortunately, the internet took off quickly and it dazzled everyone, and we're only now coming to our senses—back down to reality. Another tragedy was that it was built on software which meant minimal physical resources/materials were needed. This allowed companies like MS, Meta, Apple etc. to exploit the fact and become the biggest and richest corporations in history. When companies can become that large and so rich in so very little time it doesn't require Einstein to determine something is very wrong with commerce and its regulation thereof.

Sooner or later the big correction will come.