| 6 Oct 2020 |
 the0 [PTIO] | Goodnight. | 22:05:44 |
 FantasyCookie17 | In reply to @the0:privacytools.io
No What is a better measure to escape it then? | 22:06:02 |
 @uhoh:matrix.org | Am I naive to think that LibreJS solves most of the problems with browser JS? | 22:06:26 |
| @uhoh:matrix.org | * Am I naive to think that LibreJS solves most of the security problems with browser JS? | 22:06:39 |
| FantasyCookie17 | Yes. An attacker could make a “trivial” JS that is malicious, or just a free license into the comments. | 22:07:13 |
| FantasyCookie17 | * Yes. An attacker could make a “trivial” JS that is malicious, or just put a free license into the comments. | 22:07:21 |
| @uhoh:matrix.org | Hmm. So all JS is irredeemably doomed? What if I manually inspect all of it? | 22:07:49 |
| FantasyCookie17 | NoScript solves all the issues, however. | 22:07:49 |
| FantasyCookie17 | You could do that, have fun with that. | 22:08:07 |
| @uhoh:matrix.org | NoScript pisses me off because the author enables JS on his personal blog and literally advertises malware | 22:08:32 |
| FantasyCookie17 | I know… On the other hand, perhaps it is to showcase why you need NoScript? | 22:09:10 |
| @uhoh:matrix.org | Perhaps it is | 22:09:22 |
| @uhoh:matrix.org | What is the key to interactivity on the web if JS is insecure? | 22:09:41 |
| FantasyCookie17 | You should trust the site, and have a well isolated browser. | 22:11:13 |
| @uhoh:matrix.org | Is the web just irredeemably broken? Are native apps better? | 22:11:50 |
| FantasyCookie17 | It’s also possible to write interactive elements in CSS (look at the menu on my site, for example, if I wanted to, I could even make it animated). | 22:11:55 |
| FantasyCookie17 | In reply to @uhoh:matrix.org
Is the web just irredeemably broken? Are native apps better? Native apps typically are preferable, yes. | 22:12:12 |
| @uhoh:matrix.org | Time for me to learn some Android | 22:12:27 |
| @uhoh:matrix.org | In reply to @fantasycookie17:fantasycookie17.onederfultech.com
Native apps typically are preferable, yes. What about a JSless web app? Is that acceptable? | 22:14:45 |
| FantasyCookie17 | Yes… Those are complicated, though. | 22:15:26 |
| @uhoh:matrix.org | Complicated in terms of what needs to happen for security and privacy? | 22:16:12 |
| FantasyCookie17 | Complicated in terms of implementation. Anyway, we’re driving into off-topic-terrain rn (and have been for the previous time already). | 22:19:15 |
 concat | Previous time already? When was that? Sorry, wasn't supervising chat that much | 22:22:01 |
| FantasyCookie17 | We drifted off to discussing general privacy, as the0 claimed Tor did not increase privacy. | 22:26:32 |
 @imperator_orionis:matrix.org | In reply to @fantasycookie17:fantasycookie17.onederfultech.com
I know… On the other hand, perhaps it is to showcase why you need NoScript? Doubt it | 22:29:09 |
| @imperator_orionis:matrix.org | In reply to @uhoh:matrix.org
Is the web just irredeemably broken? Are native apps better? Yes 100% | 22:29:23 |
| @imperator_orionis:matrix.org | Use gomuks instead of element | 22:29:29 |
| concat | In reply to @imperator_orionis:matrix.org
Use gomuks instead of element How does Gomuks implement E2EE? | 22:30:03 |
| FantasyCookie17 | In reply to @imperator_orionis:matrix.org
Use gomuks instead of element Does gomuks even have moderation and such? | 22:30:18 |
| @imperator_orionis:matrix.org | In reply to @concat:spitetech.com
How does Gomuks implement E2EE? Haven't taken a look, all I know is that it does | 22:31:14 |
