Works for me. Are you using a web browser? While a webapp client is provided for convenience, upon request, this is a social media site, not a website; there is no canonical HTML representation, so don't be surprised when you don't get one.
I don't think that logic holds: Nitter can render an HTML representation just fine. It's not because it's a "social media site" that there cannot be an HTML+CSS representation.
Anyway I don't think disabling javascript wholesale is workable these days, so complaining about that is not very constructive (i.e. I sort of agree with you). Especially for open source products, those people should feel free to contribute or sponsor a non-JS version rather than complaining to volunteers to do a ton of extra work for what I suspect is literally no more than a few dozen people on the globe (particularly with noncommercial software like mastodon which isn't going to be annoying when JS is turned on).
I should start complaining that sites don't look nice with CSS disabled :P (Sometimes I turn css off using an extension to avoid the rules that make the text thin+gray on a grayish background.)
> those people should feel free to contribute or sponsor a non-JS version
It will be rejected. Mastodon used to have a good HTML view with progressive enhancement for logged-out users. But in v4.0 they replaced it with the same React app as the loggin-in users, to lower the maintenance cost.
Oh, that's a bit disappointing, but yeah understandable if you'd otherwise break the HTML view all the time and you can't let the noscript crowd take care of that independently :(
They could have kept the HTML view as the only public view. It would benefit everyone, as it was faster than the react app. Instead they now have to keep backporting security fixes to the 3.5.x branch for admins who don't want to force the new view on their users. (Well, the 3.5.x branch will stop getting security updates in three months, we'll see how many admins will still refuse to update to 4.x.x then.)
