Yes, but unfortunately, I’ve sometimes found blog posts to be rejected by our moderators even if credible and the primary research source. So unless I choose a recognised news publisher’s article instead, I risk having my post removed.

The bostonglobe.com article that I just posted has that information. In short, harm to the plaintiffs and unrecoverable costs to DC and Virginia.

If you live in the US, please watch this video, paying special attention to The Spoiler Effect:

CGP Grey: Voting Systems (Politics in the Animal Kingdom)

Edit: That link is a playlist. It’s worth watching more than just the first video.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bum steer

Is that in the article somewhere? I don’t see it.

Edit: Ah, I see: It’s in the metadata that Lemmy shows beneath the headline.

I can’t do anything about that. You might try browsing with javascript disabled.

Let’s be careful how we phrase things here. JavaScript form submission and navigation are choices, not needs.

Also, progressive enhancement / graceful degradation exists. When competent developers (or bosses) want script effects on our sites, we can include them and make the sites continue to function with scripts disabled. It might require more work, but it is absolutely possible.

Framing the script-based approaches to these things as if they were needs contributes to the problem, IMHO.

(I am referring to the vast majority of web sites, of course, not special-purpose web applications like games.)

Web developers are complicit in browser fingerprinting, by insisting that sites require JavaScript (or WASM).

All of us are complicit in browser fingerprinting, because we tolerate this script dependence.

IMHO, a web site being allowed to execute arbitrary code on visitors’ hardware should be an anomaly. The vast majority of them could be built to deliver the same information without requiring that inherently dangerous permission.