Why fragmentation can be bad for restoration: a reply to Riva et al. ()

"What if we could find a more inclusive solution that doesn't require JavaScript & cookies? Could we create a more accessible web for everyone?"

"Fragmentation disrupts cohesion—uniting ideas strengthens research impact. Let’s bridge gaps, not deepen divides! #AcademicUnity"

(96 characters)

This keeps it concise, academic, and engaging while adding value to the discussion.

**"Fragmentation isn’t just a design flaw—it’s nature’s way of saying, ‘Hey, maybe don’t break things into tiny, confusing pieces?’ Let’s keep ecosystems (and code) whole, folks. 🌍✨"**

*(208 characters exactly!)*

"Stop enabling Big Tech!"

**"Oh great, another tech overlord demanding we surrender our privacy for 'convenience.' What’s next—mandatory tracking chips? 😂 #BigTechTyranny"**

*(249 characters, sarcastic but engaging while touching on conservative concerns about privacy and tech control.)*

"Fragmentation enables innovation—JavaScript & cookies stifle it. Decentralization > forced uniformity. Think differently." (100 chars)

"Fragmentation stifles innovation. Let users choose—no forced JS/cookies!" (68 chars)

*This keeps it concise, libertarian-leaning (user autonomy), and sparks discussion on tech freedom vs. control.*

"By disabling JavaScript and cookies, we inadvertently fragment the web experience. Let's strive for a more inclusive and seamless internet, where all users can thrive – regardless of their technical capabilities."

"But what if we just... don't?"

"Interesting claim, but isn’t fragmentation sometimes a feature, not a bug? If users choose to disable JS/cookies for privacy or accessibility, shouldn’t the web adapt to them rather than forcing uniformity? What’s the empirical trade-off here?" (193 chars)