That's something I would disagree with though. "Sticking with plain HTML and CSS" is way more work, and often has significantly less functionality, than building a website with a framework.

I don't mind frameworks, but some features that seem super useful to devs, like google analytics, and various diagnostic/logging tools, social media integrations, I would prefer to "opt in" when I decide they are necessary.

Not the person you're asking and I'm running uMatrix instead of noscript to block scripts. But I do it to get more granular control over what my browser loads and runs. Why run scripts if a website works perfectly fine without them? These days I ain't trusting shit out there on the web.

Tldr: I prefer to opt-in.

Technically it's uBO, but I use the extreme setting that blocks all scripts by default. Truthfully I wasn't aware just how many scripts get loaded especially on ecommerce and social media sites, there are too many heavy frameworks being used. Much of it is unnecessary bloat, slowing down my browser, and no small amount of it is devoted to tracking and data collection.

In general, I find less than half of loaded scripts are required to make a page functional. It's a process requiring trial-and-error, but I have a good set of base rules in place for trusted sites and scripts.

For me, it's about not giving websites free reign over my browser and by extension my computer and personal data, but having some measure of control over them.

And occasionally there are suspicious sites where I truly don't want any scripts to run. I don't even have to worry about them.

I require https, but not every website is secure, and sometimes the certificate has a problem or is expired.