Your second paragraph is entirely developer work.

At no point do you change your focus to what works best for the user. Who is the user; what kind of devices does he use; what does he want to accomplish on your website; what does he need to accomplish that; etc.

Why do you think that choosing an SPA hurts my users? If I'm selling a service, it's in my best interest to give my users the best service possible; it's entirely possible to write accessible SPAs with great UX, as it's entirely possible to do that with server-rendered applications (and vice-versa). If I'm not selling a service and I'm prototyping or giving something away for free, I obviously tend to give more importance to my DX and time - if it means a worse experience for users because I'm cutting corners, so be it. They're still getting stuff for free.

Additionally, there is an entire class of web apps that I wouldn't have written if they weren't SPAs. The luxury of uploading some files for free to an industry-grade CDN and using a ready-made backend of which I'm not the admin on its free tier allows me to write stuff that I wouldn't have even started if I had to rent a machine and spawn a server somewhere, with all the admin / maintenance costs attached.

Of course there is a class of people who don't want to run Javascript on their devices. I understand that and I respect that. I might be one of them in certain cases. But unless I'm writing life-saving software or I'm running a monopoly (which is generally not the case), their importance in my audience will be evaluated on a cost/benefit basis.

As a solo developer, especially when you are building free stuff to scratch your itch, of course you are free to pick whatever tech works best for you. My complaint is that this kind of mindset extends beyond solo developers to dev teams in commercial companies, and even worse, in the public sector.

I tend to not understand that mindset as well: unless they're writing life saving software or they're running a de facto (like Google) or de jure (like .gov) monopoly(+), which means you're forced to use them even if you don't want, the technology they decide to use is entirely their choice. If they provide a worse experience, don't use their services / use an alternative that provides a better experience. If they provide a good experience at the cost of running Javascript on your device, you still have the choice of not using their service, or of making an exception for them and running their code. Someone can even write an alternative and market it to anti-SPA folks.

(+) If they are a monopoly, I would say that the problem are not SPAs, but the existence of monopolies itself.

> unless they're writing life saving software or ... you're forced to use them even if you don't want, the technology they decide to use is entirely their choice

The technology is always (or almost always?) their choice. However, if it is a public sector organisation, it owes it to the public to care about them, to be informed about devices they are using and the conditions they are using them in; and to strive to provide its services in the most accessible way. "How fast does a page load", "how fast does the page perform on users' devices once it's loaded", and "how gracefully it degrades under unfavorable conditions" should be important parts of the conversation.

Businesses in the private sector have fewer responsibilities to the public, and are primarily controlled by market forces; but still, it would probably benefit them to have similar considerations.

SPA hate is mainly because there are so many broken (navigation etc) SPAs that would have been much better as regular websites.