> You should complain to the administrators of the sites distributing nonfree
JavaScript...
I think what the OP is saying is that text-based browsers do a better job of
handling some JS-heavy sites than graphical browsers do with JS blocked.
I have noticed this too. For example, see the attached screenshots. The
first is of what youtube.com looks like in ungoogled-chromium with JS blocked
via uBlock Origin, and the second is what the same page looks like in Lynx.
In ungoogled-chromium, there is no visible text and no clickable links (the
same thing happens with Firefox-based browsers). In Lynx, there is some
readable text and working links.
Complaining to the admins of sites with non-free JS does not address this
particular issue. The issue is that some information is not accessible in
Abrowser and other graphical browsers without JS, even though that
information *is* accessible in text-only browsers like Lynx and EWW without
JS.
