Just started getting this now. Hopefully it’s some A/B testing that they’ll stop doing, but I’m not holding my breath

  • perishthethought@lemm.eeEnglish
    278·
    2 months ago

    I hate how these kinds of messages never explain WHY. It’s just “Do it. Do what we tell you.” 💀

    • Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1253·
      2 months ago

      BOW TO YOUR MASTERS, AND SUCK OUR DICK!!!

      I remember 10 years ago looking at a calculator app in the android app store, and seeing the permissions. And thinking “WHY THE FUCK DOES A CALCULATOR NEED MY LOCATION, AND ACCESS TO MY PHONE CONTACTS???”

      Fuck THAT.

    • tomi000@lemmy.worldEnglish
      244·
      2 months ago

      Probably because 99.999% of users already use JS and dedicating a web page to it is already more work than they needed to put into it

      • fuck_u_spez_in_particular@lemmy.worldEnglish
        211·
        2 months ago

        I think it’s just to avoid explaining why, and how they harvest your data. That said, I also hate how a lot of errors of the big corpo are just like “This site has an error” no error-code, no further feedback what to do etc.

        • Hyperlon@lemmy.worldEnglish
          1·
          2 months ago

          It probably logs the error automatically. There’s nothing you can do on your end to fix their code problem in most cases which is why there is no feedback on what you should do…

    • Hyperlon@lemmy.worldEnglish
      51·
      2 months ago

      A lot of websites are react which doesn’t function without JavaScript. It’s a more powerful tool for web dev and can be a better experience for the user if used right.

      • perishthethought@lemm.eeEnglish
        7·
        2 months ago

        Great. If that was their reason, they could explain that. But they didn’t and that’s my beef.

        But since you seem to be tech savvy, you also already know why they don’t explain which great features of react they want to use on this page. And we all already know it’s not for the user’s benefit. It’s for money they receive from data mining every minute of our lives.

        • Hyperlon@lemmy.worldEnglish
          5·
          2 months ago

          In google’s case, you might be right. However in general what are you expecting the website to say? An explanation of why react was chosen over other languages? Otherwise the reason you have to enable JavaScript on a react website is because the site doesn’t work without it. I see that like complaining that your gas light on your car doesn’t provide an explanation as to why gas is required for it to run.

          If you are curious why a lot of sites use languages like react instead of plain html, there are a few reasons. Prior to react like languages, web servers would generate the page, send it to you, and then anytime you interacted with the site it would send you a whole new page to display. I.e. if you opened a popup for uploading a file, it would send you a whole new page to display which is why older sites flicker on basically any interaction. Newer sites that use things like React are downloaded once. It basically downloads the code to make the website and then runs entirely on your machine. The benefit to this is that if you sort a list, open a drop-down, open a popup to download a file, etc. it all happens on your computer instead of some remote server. No need to wait for a server to respond or download a new page, it can update that specific part of the page instead. Some sites are even fully functional offline because of this which is really cool in my opinion.

          This makes a far better user experience because everything is instant and doesn’t trigger page reloads on every interaction with the site.

          It’s good for developers because it allows code reusability and vastly increases what you can do. Many of the critical features I have on my site are not possible without JavaScript/React. I actually first developed the site using the old style and changed it over to React because of those limitations.

          Google could have updated their site to one of these languages to open up new possibilities in what they can do on their site. That or they might be making it more consistent with their other products for maintainability reasons. I find it unlikely that the people who have JavaScript turned off are a large enough portion of the population for them to care about their data but I could be wrong.

    • Artyom@lemm.eeEnglish
      1·
      2 months ago

      Because if they typed out an honest reason why, you would avoid them like the plague.

  • Zier@fedia.io
    1682·
    2 months ago

    Google is no longer a Search Engine. It is a commerce/purchase search. It’s nothing more than ads and corporate results to purchase goods & services. Google Shopping has taken over Google.

    • Delta_V@lemmy.worldEnglish
      23·
      2 months ago

      Back in the day it was the best at what it did, but there’s less demand these days for that kind of old fashioned search.

      Its still better than the competition at finding the URL of a corporate or government entity. Its still helpful for searching other websites for particular content - for example, the wikis for some games have an obtuse layout and unhelpful search function, and google can be the best way to find a particular page in that wiki.

      Before ChatGPT existed, and before the enshitifaction of Reddit reached the critical level its at today, google searching site:reddit.com was pretty good at finding organic human conversations that provide actual answers to your questions.

      Today however, ChatGPT is better at providing useful answers to whatever questions you may have. And Bing is better at image search.

  • superkret@feddit.orgEnglish
    79·
    2 months ago

    DuckDuckGo doesn’t ;)

    By the way, in my browser, the title of this post shows up as

    Google now requires Javascript in c/mildlyinfuriating

    which shocked me a little.

  • csm10495@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    8114·
    2 months ago

    I know this may come off as a surprise: but I imagine that requiring JS in 2024 isn’t a big deal to most people.

    Now of course Lemmy skews more into that small crowd.

    I don’t blame any website for requiring JS for full functionality in 2024.

      • filcuk@lemmy.zipEnglish
        1614·
        2 months ago

        It’s far more than that. Even on a basic search page. Ever expanded the ‘Peaplo also ask’ section, for example? It loads more results based on your scroll position or interaction.
        There’s loads of little things like this, you may just not notice or care about it - which is another discussion.

          • filcuk@lemmy.zipEnglish
            1310·
            2 months ago

            That’s not up to you, or any of us.
            Not maintaining non-js version makes sense for the business, considering how few people are affected.

            All we can do is move away to something better.

            • TheObviousSolution@lemm.eeEnglish
              1010·
              2 months ago

              Thank you for deciding what was better for us, we would have been so wrong without you. /s

    • PresidentCamacho@lemm.eeEnglish
      418·
      2 months ago

      All of the people replying to this saying you shouldn’t need JS are totally unaware how modern web development works.

      Yes, you could do many sites without JS, but the entire workforce for web development is trained with JS frameworks. To do otherwise would slow development time down significantly, not allow for certain functionality to exist (functionality you would 100% be unhappy was missing).

      Its not a question of possibility, its a question of feasibility.

        • auzy@lemmy.worldEnglish
          52·
          2 months ago

          Even things like lazy loading and such require js though

          A lot of features might not be obvious honestly

          If you’re interested though, you could check the source which should be able to tell you immediately what they use it for

          • Crashumbc@lemmy.worldEnglish
            3·
            2 months ago

            I love how Lemmy users just assume everyone is a coder… Just a funny observation, not being rude. Lol

            • auzy@lemmy.worldEnglish
              4·
              2 months ago

              Presumably… If you’re complaining about the use of Javascript, you have some coding knowledge. Otherwise it’s like complaining about the steering wheel in a car, when you can’t drive and don’t have a licence.

              Either they have the knowledge to confirm your answer, or you’re just being a backseat driver

        • PresidentCamacho@lemm.eeEnglish
          2·
          2 months ago

          It wasn’t required, but id wager 99% of website that exist currently run JS in some form or another for something.

          Id wager its impossible to have anything dynamic on a webpage without JS (minus visual dynamics which can be handled with css), at that point you have to replace it with a different programming language and every browser needs to completely change gears to allow other code to run instead. But what advantage is gained by changing to another programming language? Cleaner code w/ less jankyness? Sure I guess, but we would be moving mountains to accomplish a silly thing.

          I’m wondering if many people in this thread understand what JS is and does.

      • ClassifiedPancake@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
        3·
        2 months ago

        I’m a React dev. You can create server side websites, written in JS, that don’t require JS to be turned on in the browser. Granted, this just became a new official feature in React but has already been available with React frameworks like NextJS

        • PresidentCamacho@lemm.eeEnglish
          2·
          2 months ago

          That is insane! I’m wondering how they handle modifying the DOM w/ out JS, did HTML 5 get a significant update? I gotta look into this because that sound super interesting.

          Any chance you know what version that went out with? I did a brief look at 18 and 17 and couldnt find it. Id really love to know how they are managing this.

          • ClassifiedPancake@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
            1·
            2 months ago

            It’s called Server Components. If you actually build a fully static website, there is no DOM modification going on. I would actually not recommend doing that with React because it kinda defeats the purpose. The goal of it is to have a mix of both. The initial render is super fast because it is prerendered once for everyone. Then dynamic data is being fetched if needed and elements are replaced. It also improves SEO.

            React 19 is not yet officially released but you can read more about it here https://react.dev/blog/2024/04/25/react-19

            • PresidentCamacho@lemm.eeEnglish
              2·
              2 months ago

              So you’re offloading the JS processing onto the server? I cant be understanding this correctly because there is no way anyone wants to pay for the serverside cost of something that used to be an end user “cost”. Also this would add interaction latency.

              • ClassifiedPancake@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
                1·
                2 months ago

                There is no latency on static pages. They are rendered once as regular HTML and then saved on the server to be immediately ready for the user. The server is only processing that initial data fetching and rendering once per site. If needed, it can be retriggered. This is great for blogs and other regular pages.

                Server pages on the other hand will do the initial fetch request every time but once the site is there, no data is missing and everything is there. It’s not for everyone. Regular dynamic pages still make sense. For every method there are use cases.

                Disclaimer: I’m speaking from my experience with Next.js which did the same thing long before and React now aims to make that easier. But I’m not sure if React has the distinction between static and server. It’s all new and I haven’t had a project to test it on yet.

                • PresidentCamacho@lemm.eeEnglish
                  2·
                  2 months ago

                  Oh I see, its only for a static page. This makes so much more sense.

                  I can see why you mentioned this feature fits weird with react, and I have to agree, its contradictory to the entire purpose of React lol.

      • SaharaMaleikuhm@feddit.orgEnglish
        85·
        2 months ago

        I wish JS would die and we get nice and simple websites back. I hate web dev so god damn much. The internet is pure enshittification

        • PresidentCamacho@lemm.eeEnglish
          12·
          2 months ago

          I don’t know how to tell you this, but removing JS doesn’t turn the internet into a wonderland. Capitalism is to blame for enshitification not JS

    • Flipper@feddit.orgEnglish
      282·
      2 months ago

      For full functionality sure. For basic functionality no. Searching on Google is basic functionality I’d say.

      • unrelatedkeg@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
        114·
        2 months ago

        Not really. Showing ads and gobbling up data is Google Search’s core functionality, and JS is indispensible for that.

        • Skates@feddit.nlEnglish
          21·
          2 months ago

          Idk if you were around when Google popped up, but it was at a time where the internet was feeling increasingly “loaded” with thousands of info per page. One where the popular engines tried to serve you twenty different things along with your search. Here’s an example:

          https://www.definitions-seo.com/images/altavista-3.jpg

          Or another:

          https://www.webdesignmuseum.org/uploaded/timeline/yahoo/yahoo-2003.png

          This isn’t a search engine. This is an all you can eat buffet, where the smallest plate is two main courses and three sides. And users just wanted a candy bar.

          So you see, a lot of us started to use Google because it was simple. It was decluttered. It was a text input with a ‘submit’ button, and that’s all we wanted. THAT is, and was, google’s core functionality, and I think it’d do them well to remember that.

          Now, if you wanna argue that’s changed, I can agree to that. But I don’t want morning news when I search for porn, that’s just gonna kill my boner. And I don’t want ads about coffee makers when I’ve just bought a coffee maker, that just means you’re incompetent. I want a search engine that searches things and provides results. That’s it. And just like Google caught momentum because they delivered this minimalistic facade that the users wanted, this is also how Google will die - at the hands of the next lightweight engine without corporate bullshit. Because the users will gobble it up.

    • stoly@lemmy.worldEnglish
      7·
      2 months ago

      You should still be able to use something like Lynx to browse and search. There’s no reason to block basic functionality except that you can and don’t care.

    • potentiallynotfelix@lemmy.fishEnglish
      3·
      2 months ago

      I agree that it’s not a big deal, but there still should be an option in my opinion. It can be a lifesaver to be able to search on older devices.

  • DontMakeMoreBabies@lemm.eeEnglish
    611·
    2 months ago

    I love that society is basically stratifying into groups based on tech knowledge - it all seems very Cyberpunk.

    • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.worldEnglish
      311·
      2 months ago

      As someone with technical knowledge sometimes I get locked out of things because I block ads or refuse Javascript. For instance, I had to turn off my pihole so I could sign into my Microsoft account to play Minecraft. Or the times I encounter a website that breaks on Firefox.

        • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.worldEnglish
          9·
          2 months ago

          The worst part was that it just showed a black window, with no controls or indication of what was wrong. Thankfully this sort of thing happens so often my first reaction is to turn off my pihole for a few minutes.

        • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.worldEnglish
          252·
          2 months ago

          I’m pretty sure my divorce lawyer’s document management system is something that’s worth using even if I have to use chrome and disable ad blocking.

        • ByteOnBikes@slrpnk.netEnglish
          6·
          2 months ago

          This is my stance.

          Like, the cost of doing business is jumping through stupid ass hoops. If you don’t want to do that, don’t join? Or be okay with doing funky ass work arounds.

    • bad_alloc@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
      13·
      2 months ago

      The more technology pervades society the more pronounced this will get. The sheer helplessness of people when faced with problems that seem trivial to some is scary. Especially when you see people losing final theses or critical work related data because they never learned about backups.

      Add to that tech companies trying to hide the concept of a file system, and it seems like this is by design to sell more shit.

      • 2deck@lemmy.worldEnglish
        2·
        2 months ago

        Yeah, obscuring and abstracting away the atomic units of the system is a classic.

        On the other hand self-education has never been easier, and there are open source alternatives of pretty much everything.

    • m_f@midwest.socialOPEnglish
      422·
      2 months ago

      Sometimes, yeah. My default is DDG, and I also use Kagi, but Google is still good at some stuff. Guess I’ll take the hit and just stop using it completely though. Kagi has been good enough, and also lets me search the fediverse for finding that dank meme I saw last week. Google used to be able to do that, but can’t shove as many ads in those queries I assume, so they dropped that ability.

    • Psycoder@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1·
      2 months ago

      I don’t think I used Google in the last 5-6 years. It’s duck duck go all the way.

  • z3rOR0ne@lemmy.mlEnglish
    53·
    2 months ago

    Yep. I use Noscript and DDG Lite by default. Just putting into duckduckgo: !g <your search goes here> will search google without having to turn JS on…looks like Duckduckgo wins again, even when it comes to using google, lol.

    • rtxn@lemmy.worldEnglish
      28·
      2 months ago
        <form method="GET" action="https://duckduckgo.com/">
    <input name="q" type="text"/>
    <button type="submit">Go</button>
  </form>

      This is a fully functional search bar. This is all it needs to be. It doesn’t need Javascript, only if you want suggestions.

      The last time I checked, Google still works if you simply pass your query in the URL using the q variable. Google has no need to enforce Javascript.

        • rtxn@lemmy.worldEnglish
          221·
          2 months ago

          It’s not about looks, it’s about functionality. I could add a hundred lines of CSS to make it sparkle without touching Javascript. I could think of a dozen convenience features that would require Javascript, but none that, if disabled, would prevent the search bar from functioning as a search bar.

        • AA5B@lemmy.worldEnglish
          9·
          2 months ago

          Like lack of accessibility? I generally use reader mode, because it gives an actual good user experience rather than “one that doesn’t look like the 90s”. I’m not sure if it turns off JavaScript, but it clearly turns off the crap that it does. Maybe half of websites work that way, the rest I either skip or click to turn off reader mode.

          I just tried google, and reader mode is disabled, which is a problem for people with accessibility issues.

          Does EU have accessibility protections? Does google give the same ad filled, cluttered, crap as the rest of us? What if you try reader mode

    • m_f@midwest.socialOPEnglish
      245·
      2 months ago

      A lot of the web is powered by JS, but much less of it needs to be. Here’s a couple of sites that are part of a trend to not unnecessarily introduce it:

      http://youmightnotneedjs.com/

      https://htmx.org/

      The negative implications for Google requiring JS is that they will use it to track everything possible about you that they can, even down to how you move your cursor, or how much battery you have left on your phone in order to jack up prices, or any other number of shitty things.

      • Chingzilla@lemmy.worldEnglish
        14·
        2 months ago

        Htmx does use javascript under the hood, but just makes it so the developer can use html markdown for more a more interactive environment that’s driven sever side. So the initial page load should render, but UI elements might not work as intended.

        htmx is more a move back to REST as it was originally defined (aka not json backend).

        • m_f@midwest.socialOPEnglish
          42·
          2 months ago

          They’re also working with browser developers to push htmx into web standards, so that hopefully soon you won’t even need htmx/JS/etc, it’ll just be what your browser does by default

      • TheObviousSolution@lemm.eeEnglish
        43·
        2 months ago

        JS is like a disease where it does not need to be. I would honestly welcome an Internet alternative that was all web 1.0 (with up-to-date security updates and methods). There’s good uses for it in interactive websites that provide cloud services, but most of it is fud and breaks the whole notion of HTTP GET URLs you can just share and cache.

    • ShadowCatEXE@lemmy.worldEnglish
      3·
      2 months ago

      A large majority of modern web applications are built with Javascript… Both frontend and backend. You do still have a large majority of websites using plain HTML or PHP, with some features requiring JS to function (modals, realtime stats, data input, etc).

      You also have alternative languages like Java or C# (and more), but also may use bits of JS on the frontend to drive functionality.

      You can bet that the majority of websites you visit nowadays will use some form of JS, unless it’s a static webpage to display basic information.