I think 3&4 are happening anyway, so 1&2 make WASM a win. Further, 1&2 apply not just to the web, but other classes of applications that Javascript is otherwise sadly making inroads in. Hadn't thought of it as a #vaguejoke, but you got the implications I had in mind.

I tend to agree with these two comments https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13759903

This is our one chance to kill javascript; if we don't do it now, it'll be entrenched forever, and best we'll ever get is 'compiles-to-js' languages like clojurescript and typescript.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13759928

I think the cause of computing freedom is likely better served by building high-quality wasm disassemblers (radare has an open ticket, for instance) and by making sure that wasm code is so tightly sandboxed that DRM can't work, i.e., that you have the equivalent of an "analog hole" because you can write a browser extension / patch that taps all the data and the inside code can't tell. Hoping that technologies won't get developed has historically not been a productive approach for software freedom; the folks who want to take our freedom have enough resources that they'll do it whether or not there's a standards process involved.