|
|
|
|
|
|
by Grombobulous
16 hours 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. |
|
|
"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)."