I did not downvote this, but I would speculate that factors might include:
1. Poor reading comprehension (i.e. speaking in the present tense, about an implementation that's clearly described as a "predecessor" from 10-15 years ago?).
2. Unnecessary snark (i.e. one "is not surprised" that a web page used HTML and Javascript?).
3. The bizarre possibility that parent might be mistaking the website and the television broadcast, even though the original comment specifies "website banner". See factor #1 above.
4. You are grossly mistaken about there being an overwhelming consensus against Javascript? Or that snarky parent comment "calls it out" in an effective manner?
1. Poor reading comprehension (i.e. speaking in the present tense, about an implementation that's clearly described as a "predecessor" from 10-15 years ago?).
2. Unnecessary snark (i.e. one "is not surprised" that a web page used HTML and Javascript?).
3. The bizarre possibility that parent might be mistaking the website and the television broadcast, even though the original comment specifies "website banner". See factor #1 above.
4. You are grossly mistaken about there being an overwhelming consensus against Javascript? Or that snarky parent comment "calls it out" in an effective manner?
If I were to downvote, it would have been for #1.