4 ms·

I stopped using Google once it started requiring JS for search. That was the day the open web truly died.

by userbinator 2mo ago

charcircuit 2mo ago
EMCAScript has an open standard that anyone can implement.
- userbinator 2mo ago
  But it shouldn't be necessary, nor is "can" any reasonable defense. The same goes for the BS about "open standard" web that is actually just Google-controlled and churning constantly to anticompetitively maintain their monopoly.
  - charcircuit 2mo ago
    >But it shouldn't be necessary It's up to sites if they want to require an open standard and risk losing clients that haven't implemented it yet. >churning constantly to anticompetitively maintain their monopoly. Google open sources the implementations of these. Competing browsers like Brave and Edge are able to integrate this open source code to support them without themselves having to deal with constantly implementing new features.
  - inigyou 2mo ago
    Well I don't think it should be necessary to use HTML to read your comments, but here we are. Why don't you make a de-JSing Google proxy? Like SearX-NG?
    - Crestwave 2mo ago
      HN has an official API that returns JSON objects. Meanwhile Google actively blocks and attempts to pursue legal action against scrapers. Not to mention prohibiting it through TOS (getting your Google account revoked can be life-ruining for many people).
      - inigyou 2mo ago
        All the more reason to degoogle.
1vuio0pswjnm7 2mo ago
Notice how HN replies have no explanations for why Google now requires JS, after not requiring it for 27+ years and when other search engines today don't require it I stopped using Google Web search as well after this point NB. The autocomplete endpoint at clients1.google.com for example does not require Javascript, nor HTTPS One could take the Google suggestions and search those strings in other search engines. Would the search results differ Google Web search might be useful for finding "popular" results as these are the only results Google LLC management wants to show its ad targets, so-called "users", because funneling ad targets to the same sites ultimately creates larger audiences for advertising and more spend from advertisers But if one is searching for "unpopular" results, e.g., performing "discovery", then using Google Web search is, IME, certainly not the best method of searching IME, quitting Google leads to more creative search strategies; I have found stuff that I never would have discovered using Google Web search NB. Google Web search requires Javascript. Scholar search, News search, etc. do not An HN favourite: https://www.wheresyoured.at/the-men-who-killed-google/ https://www.wheresyoured.at/the-men-who-killed-google/ https://www.wheresyoured.at/in-response-to-google/ https://www.wheresyoured.at/in-response-to-google/
- Grombobulous 2mo ago
  Conversely, little explanation is given as to why a JavaScript requirement negatively impacts users. I’ve stopped using Google search as well but JavaScript is the least of their sins. It’s completely reasonable for a website to require/leverage a technology that literally 100% of their customers have.
  - Plont 2mo ago
    [dead]
  - userbinator 2mo ago
    Just going to copy the dead sibling comment because it says the truth: "Allowing javascript can create security vulnerabilities (e.g. in the case of infected ads), and it is used for browser fingerprinting, so that users can be tracked and ad targeted across sites (especially if the information is sold, as part of a database, to third parties who combine it with other databases) even when they deny cookie and local storage permissions and aren't logged in to a google account and are using a vpn or proxy. If you go to one of those "how unique is my browser" test websites, if you have javascript blocked, they have comparatively almost nothing to go off. It also always loads slower and uses more data and ram than plain HTML, and unfortunately many people in rural areas still have shitty internet service and/or old hardware. And it's rubbish if you just want to browse the internet on something like an ereader or an old laptop. Unless you specifically need features that aren't possible without it, it's a worse experience, and Google is choosing to make it mandatory for the whole site instead of just for the specific features that need it because it's good for their ad revenue. It's a means for Google to track and sell the data of users who are trying to opt out and preserve their privacy. I haven't found a single other search engine that does this. I'm pretty sure even Bing doesn't (although they do their "log in for reward points" thing instead)."
dorgo 2mo ago
What? Google search works fine for me ( JS disabled in ublock origin ). Lots of other sites are broken, but google search works. Edit: now I'm worried. Is JS actually disabled?

I stopped using Google once it started requiring JS for search. That was the day the open web truly died.

charcircuit 2mo ago

EMCAScript has an open standard that anyone can implement.

userbinator 2mo ago
But it shouldn't be necessary, nor is "can" any reasonable defense. The same goes for the BS about "open standard" web that is actually just Google-controlled and churning constantly to anticompetitively maintain their monopoly.
- charcircuit 2mo ago
  >But it shouldn't be necessary It's up to sites if they want to require an open standard and risk losing clients that haven't implemented it yet. >churning constantly to anticompetitively maintain their monopoly. Google open sources the implementations of these. Competing browsers like Brave and Edge are able to integrate this open source code to support them without themselves having to deal with constantly implementing new features.
- inigyou 2mo ago
  Well I don't think it should be necessary to use HTML to read your comments, but here we are. Why don't you make a de-JSing Google proxy? Like SearX-NG?
  - Crestwave 2mo ago
    HN has an official API that returns JSON objects. Meanwhile Google actively blocks and attempts to pursue legal action against scrapers. Not to mention prohibiting it through TOS (getting your Google account revoked can be life-ruining for many people).
    - inigyou 2mo ago
      All the more reason to degoogle.

1vuio0pswjnm7 2mo ago

Notice how HN replies have no explanations for why Google now requires JS, after not requiring it for 27+ years and when other search engines today don't require it I stopped using Google Web search as well after this point NB. The autocomplete endpoint at clients1.google.com for example does not require Javascript, nor HTTPS One could take the Google suggestions and search those strings in other search engines. Would the search results differ Google Web search might be useful for finding "popular" results as these are the only results Google LLC management wants to show its ad targets, so-called "users", because funneling ad targets to the same sites ultimately creates larger audiences for advertising and more spend from advertisers But if one is searching for "unpopular" results, e.g., performing "discovery", then using Google Web search is, IME, certainly not the best method of searching IME, quitting Google leads to more creative search strategies; I have found stuff that I never would have discovered using Google Web search NB. Google Web search requires Javascript. Scholar search, News search, etc. do not An HN favourite: https://www.wheresyoured.at/the-men-who-killed-google/ https://www.wheresyoured.at/the-men-who-killed-google/ https://www.wheresyoured.at/in-response-to-google/ https://www.wheresyoured.at/in-response-to-google/

Grombobulous 2mo ago
Conversely, little explanation is given as to why a JavaScript requirement negatively impacts users. I’ve stopped using Google search as well but JavaScript is the least of their sins. It’s completely reasonable for a website to require/leverage a technology that literally 100% of their customers have.
- Plont 2mo ago
  [dead]
- userbinator 2mo ago
  Just going to copy the dead sibling comment because it says the truth: "Allowing javascript can create security vulnerabilities (e.g. in the case of infected ads), and it is used for browser fingerprinting, so that users can be tracked and ad targeted across sites (especially if the information is sold, as part of a database, to third parties who combine it with other databases) even when they deny cookie and local storage permissions and aren't logged in to a google account and are using a vpn or proxy. If you go to one of those "how unique is my browser" test websites, if you have javascript blocked, they have comparatively almost nothing to go off. It also always loads slower and uses more data and ram than plain HTML, and unfortunately many people in rural areas still have shitty internet service and/or old hardware. And it's rubbish if you just want to browse the internet on something like an ereader or an old laptop. Unless you specifically need features that aren't possible without it, it's a worse experience, and Google is choosing to make it mandatory for the whole site instead of just for the specific features that need it because it's good for their ad revenue. It's a means for Google to track and sell the data of users who are trying to opt out and preserve their privacy. I haven't found a single other search engine that does this. I'm pretty sure even Bing doesn't (although they do their "log in for reward points" thing instead)."

dorgo 2mo ago

What? Google search works fine for me ( JS disabled in ublock origin ). Lots of other sites are broken, but google search works. Edit: now I'm worried. Is JS actually disabled?