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
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)."
Consider the level of data collection and behavioral surveillance enabled by the SearchGuard Javascript at issue in Google LLC v SerpApi LLC, as described here:
Google LLC may claim that this Javascript is an access control to protect material copyrighted by others
But the court in Google v SerpApi has found that to be false, with the possible exception of "Knowledge Panel" material. The court found that Google LLC is not authorized to protect the returned URLs in a SERP as copyrighted material
If the purpose of this Javascript is not access control for copyright protection then what is its purpose
Can the user control this Javascript. No, it's under the control of Google LLC
Can the user control how the data collected by GoogleLLC via SearchGuard or other Javascripts is used or where it may be sent. No
Many of these tactics, including Real-Time Bidding (see AdGguard blog post), as implemented by adtech companies such as Google, require Javascript
It is reasonable that a user might prefer to avoid running Javascript from adtech companies, such as Google LLC
Some of us have been searching the www since before Javascript existed
Using others' Javascript is a choice the user gets to make. Adtech commpany Javascript for web search should be optional. Costs may outweigh benefits. Depends on the user
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.
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.
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).
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/in-response-to-google/