Technology @lemmy.world Nemeski @lemm.ee 2mo ago

Google begins requiring JavaScript for Google Search

techcrunch.com Google begins requiring JavaScript for Google Search | TechCrunch

Google says it has begun requiring users to turn on JavaScript in order to use Google Search, possibly in an effort to block certain SEO tools.

143

You're viewing a single thread.

143 comments

Honestly, JS is such a core part of the web, I'm surprised it took this long.
- There is no need for any JS to simply POST a query to a web server, and receive an HTML response. This is to force tracking, ad, and AI bullshit on people.
  
  Google is a lot more than just the one google.com page. And even if it were, JS adds some nice features like predective text / suggested searches.
  
  Tracking, ads, and AI can be done without JS. They may be slightly less granular in the same way as the user experience will be slightly worse, but disabling JS won't stop it.
  
  I'd bet the biggest reason Google decided to do this is so that they don't have to support a version of the site that virtually nobody uses.
  
  Imo, the most compelling reason for non-JS versons of typically JS-driven sites is to support lower power devices. But it's 2025 and even a 10 year old phone you found in a dumpster behind a decaying Radio Shack can run modern websites without issue.
  
  Even the article is grasping at straws for why this might be bad. "It might make accessibility more difficult or add security issues". One of the most valuable companies in the world, with some of the best engineers in the world, is going to have problems adding aria attributes and updating dependencies? Give me a break.
  
  If you want to block tracking, ads, and "AI", there are plenty of ways to do that without disabling literally all JS. If you want to construct your google search request without the rest of the stuff on google.com, use your browser's search bar.
  
  I'm as anti-google/tracking/etc as the next guy, and I've been using DDG almost exclusively for years, but I'm not going to pretend like asking companies to make HTML/CSS-only versions of their sites is a reasonable request in the modern web environment. It can be really fun and cool to build a site without JS, but there aren't many scenarios where it's actually beneficial.
  
  The replies in this thread are just plain ignorant. Basically every website uses JS heavily and disabling all JS with something like noscript is just a plain bad time.
  
  Even in your comment, every sentence is wrong. Google searches are done with GET requests, and there are plenty of reasons to force JS other than tracking, ads, and ai.
  
  But it's 2025 and even a 10 year old phone you found in a dumpster behind a decaying Radio Shack can run modern websites without issue.
  
  What about a server without a GUI where your only interface is a terminal using the Lynx browser? I've lost count of how many times I've done that.
  
  The background world of the Internet infrastructure nobody ever sees or thinks about still very much looks like the 1980s.
  
  You've seriously been in situations where you had no access to the internet except through a terminal, and you had to do a google search? No phone or other computer that you're remoting in from?
  
  Even so, there are terminal-based browsers that support javascript like brow.sh or links (not lynx).
  
  I doubt the nothing-but-terminal users comprise a significant enough portion of Google's userbase to justify the extra costs to test and maintain non-JS functionality.
  
  Yes, I have. Searching for mirrors to get an installation package of some sort or ISOs to set up virtual machines and downloading it directly to the server, for example. Don't need USB, don't need another PC or phone, just do it all on the same server you're working on.
  
  Interesting that that is the workflow that works best for you. I've personally always found it a much better experience to do my searching/browsing off of the server and wget whatever I need to download. If that's truly your situation, then you may just need to use another browser that supports JS or use a different search engine. I prefer DDG anyway, lol. Not a huge deal.
  
  I grew up on DOS. I am equally as comfortable doing practically everything in a terminal as I am in a graphical environment. I'm sure I'm not alone among other IT folks.
  
  I've been known to keep text based IRC clients or text based Tetris or some shit open on another virtual terminal for shits and giggles while I'm working an a different one, flipping back and forth between tasks. Just like a user on a multitasking graphical OS would do.
  
  but I’m not going to pretend like asking companies to make HTML/CSS-only versions of their sites is a reasonable request i
  
  believe me, its over a reasonable request, it's a duty, a respect for technology : javascript towards to enshitification, pure html/css is heaven while JS became now pure evil.
  
  A lot of people turn off js to avoid tracking, or for performance, or they are calling the search in scripts, or they are doing illegal deals in their browser. There are dozens of reasons to do this.
  
  I’m USA based and this will impact future protests : not just the search but all google services must be avoided in the future.
  
  This will also break tens of thousands of scripts
  
  These days, the "suggested searches" are ads in the shape of searches of companies or products, many of which nobody ever heard of. Gone are the days of the genuine "other people searched for this." It was only a matter of time, I guess.
  
  But it’s 2025 and even a 10 year old phone you found in a dumpster behind a decaying Radio Shack can run modern websites without issue.
  
  since google is pure evil, i use dillo daily.
  
  I remember using NoScript extension ages ago for what I believe was at least a year. Occasionally sites had problems with loading certain elements even if I allowed 1st party scripts by default. It was way too often when I had to allow domains of various 3rd party scripts when I finally realized this workflow just sucks and benefit is so miniscule that I just got rid of it. Only blocking extension I am using right now is uBlock.
  
  I know it does not matter, but it pains to see that perfectly normal comments like yours that add to conversation get downvoted just because some people do not agree with its narrative.
- One logo, one input field, one button, nothing requires JS. They could have kept a simple solution for disabled people but they don't even care about that.
  
  Search suggestions require JS. Also, why would Google spend the resources supporting the 5 people that block JS when virtually all websites and users rely on JS. This is a nothingburger of a story.
  
  You are vastly underestimating the popularity of uBlock Origin's JS blocking feature.
  
  the 5 people
  
  i dont think there are only five guys disabling JS on google search, but just by noscript without exceptions, it's only 200k on firefox... but who would use evil chromium today?
  
  who the fuck needs google's suggestions? It's not a necessity

143 comments