The problem is that “serious laws” in China are unacceptable in the west. You can be in serious trouble for talking about Winnie the Pooh, think about that. That’s just one example.
So, even if that's true, he was jailed for posting dozens of "comments and inappropriate images insulting to the leader of this country". Not for posting pictures of winnie the pooh.
That’s still unacceptable by western standards. In the US, which is not as free as it declares, there’s a whole category of TV shows insulting the president. Zero repercussions.
That I do not understand. Insulting a president is indirectly insulting half of the country which chosen him. That's OK. At the same time, insulting black people or homosexuals is not OK, despite them being a small minority of the entire population.
Also I think that if we will focus on this particular thing: whether there are legal repercussion for insulting a country leader, that might reveal plenty of countries where it's not allowed. So China might be not an outlier.
>At the same time, insulting black people or homosexuals is not OK,
The problem is that those are not okay, they should be okay.
Free speech doesn't mean free from responsibility, so you should still face consequences for whatever you say. If you insult someone you should expect an insult or a libel suit or a fist to the face back, but you shouldn't be barred from insulting someone to start with just like we are free to insult the POTUS and then face any music.
> I really wish that browsers gave control back to the users
Exactly this. Browsers have stopped doing their job as the "User's Agent" and instead are acting more in the interest of web developers. Consequently, developers now see the browser window as a limitless empty canvas that they can just do whatever they want in, regardless of the user's desires.
The use case seems to be very obviously isolation (archived site can’t affect archive.org’s header), although I think iframes would have been a much better solution to this)
Judging by people who make links via click listener on DIV, the answer is no.
On one side it’s understandable that people work more on abstractions and are more productive (e.g. learn React first, then maybe understand how P is different from DIV), on the other side it’s incredibly frustrating to see links that aren’t real links even on Google’s websites.
> people work more on abstractions and are more productive
Well, that's one way to define "productive". If a site contains links that are "clickable divs" or has layout shifts, or whatever other "modern" atrocity, can the work really be rated as "done"?
Without done work, productivity is either zero, or undefined.
It's reinventing what browsers can already do if you use an HTML link <a href="…"> so it's inefficient. It's also inaccessible.
* It's not in the focus order so you can't keyboard navigate to it. You have to add tabindex="0" to the div to correct that.
* It's not keyboard operable. You have to add not just a click listener but also a key press event listener and check that the key pressed is Enter.
* It has no role so a screen reader user doesn't know that it's a link. You have to add role="link" to it.
It's also missing useful user experience features of actual links
* You can hover a cursor over a real link to see the destination URL in the status bar.
* You can copy a real link's URL.
* You can use alternate clicks or a contextual menu to open a link destination in a new window.
Search engines can't find and index the destination of fake links.
HTML means HyperText Markup Language. HyperText means “documents linked to each other”. By not using <A> you’re skipping the core reason why HTML exists, as defined by its name.
The other comment explains pretty well what that causes in the browser.
