Reasons Not to Use Google (2015) | Hacker News Reader

Reasons Not to Use Google (2015)

stallman.org

138 pointspearjuice114 comments

>In general, most Google services require running nonfree Javascript code. If you refuse to run that (for instance, by running LibreJS), you'll see that you should not use those services.

Well, I use Google Maps just about every single day so Stallman's advice banning Javascript is way too hardcore for me.

But for sake of discussion, let's entertain what he's suggesting. What are the most practical alternatives to avoid Google's Javascript maps in 2019?

- other websites like Bing Maps and even openstreetmap.org also don't work without Javascript

- using local software like old CDROMs of map software means I'm using data that's 20 years old because no mainstream software publisher (e.g. Microsoft Streets, DeLorme, etc) is selling it and only cover a region instead of the entire globe. Also that CD software is proprietary and not free-as-in-libre.

- using folding paper maps like Rand McNally have similar problems to CDROMs -- the maps are old and more cumbersome.

- other alternatives I overlooked are ... ?

Inevitably, this leads to the condescending question... "How did we get by _before_ Google Maps?!?"

I got by in the past by making the usage of maps more inconvenient.

EDIT to replies about OpenStreetMap: Last I checked, OpenStreetMap doesn't have publicly accessible satellite images or 3D/birdseye views or street-level 360 degree views. Openstreetcam is missing a lot of roads. I use that type of photographic imagery even more than the line drawings of streets. Is there a practical non-Javascript alternative for that data?

The most practical alternative is using a real map.

I remember the days of using real maps instead of mapping apps on my phone.

Those days fucking sucked.

Well, if you're going to cry about using something that runs on the entire web, then that's your alternative. Or grab a Garmin, though I'm sure Stallman probably believes there is a mind control listening device in those too.

OSM data can be used with all sorts of software though and not just the website. I imagine at least one of them is free software.

The website (and all of the mapping tools) are free software. The repo is on their github: https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website

For mobile I recommend OsmAnd: https://github.com/osmandapp/Osmand

I doubt there are any web clients that don't use JavaScript, though. How would that even work?

Like, I can understand being peeved at the use of JS for text that really doesn't need it. But something like a mapping app, I don't see how you get around it.

But the complaint is being misread. In "require running nonfree Javascript code" Stallman isn't saying "require running Javascript code, which we all know is inherently nonfree". He's saying "require running particular Javascript code which in this instance is nonfree." A web client that uses free (as in speech, not as in bird) Javascript code is presumably fine.

Probably OpenStreetMap/Nominatim or something along those lines.

It won't satisfy rms but seriously: Apple Maps, which is actually good now.

The Maps app on Macs and iOS does not use JavaScript. It also supports satellite and 3d views, and the street view shipping in a month looks better than what Google offers:

https://twitter.com/rvdsteege/status/1139264604918485005

Note that Look Around only supports a small set of locations currently.

He doesn't want to use Javascript because he doesn't want non-free software (the JS code) running on his computer.

Using a proprietary software on a proprietary OS is not going to be any better.

Serious question: why is JavaScript not free (as in ‘freedom’ to use)? Who is the owner of JS and do web browsers have to pay for it?

edit: tried to make my questions clearer :)

You can read https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.html.

Note that the discussion here is about JavaScript code, not JavaScript the programming language (there seems to have been some confusion in this thread).

Also note that being able to read the code doesn't entail that the code is free as in freedom (i.e., released under a corresponding license). If you share some non-trivial[0] code of yours on GitHub, or deploy a website with your own non-trivial JS code, it still fully belongs to you, and people are not free to reuse it without asking you.

[0]: you probably cannot claim much for a hello world even if you wrote it yourself

Thanks for that link and info. My reading is that it seems the GNU’s/FSF’s issue with JavaScript is that the code is not always available (to view/peruse):

“It is possible to release a JavaScript program as free software, by distributing the source code under a free software license. If the program is self-contained—if its functioning and purpose are independent of the page it came in—that is fine; you can copy it to a file on your machine, modify it, and visit that file with a browser to run it. But that is an unusual case.” [0]

JS code can obviously be client-side (generally readable in a browser via View Source, but not always, unless I am mistaken) or server-side (not generally readable, unless explicitly shared by the devs).

But based on [1] and [2] and [3], it appears that JS the language is owned and maintained by ECMA, which is a not-for-profit standards org.

So then I’m still a bit confused as to who whose lawyers would be coming after you if you published some JS code on Github or your own web-site? Not the ECMA’s right?

[0] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.html [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/JavaScript [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecma_International [3] https://www.quora.com/Who-is-the-owner-of-javascript

You can publish as much of your own javascript code as you want under any license on your website or github, or anywhere. The issue they have is not with the ownership of javascript the language. The issue is that if you wanted to take the frontend code to Facebook, Google Maps, Office 365, or something like that, and modify it to create your own version, you have two problems. One, that it probably isn't allowed by the license and the Facebook/Google/Microsoft lawyers could come after you if you tried to redistribute it. Two, it's likely it will be very difficult to attempt to do that because the code is intentionally obfuscated by a javascript minifier.

Thanks for that.

So really their (FSF/GNU) issue is not with JS at all, but with devs who don’t licence their code under a free software licence? In other words, who enforce the copyright of their own algorithms?

What I also find a bit confusing (inconsistent?) with this stance is that a dev can do a reasonable amount of interesting things with HTML+CSS+SVG (obviously there are limits on the ‘interaction’ side of things), and assumably devs can also licence their HTML+CSS+SVG under whatever licence they wish: so then why pick on JS?

I think they would if we got to a point where HTML+CSS+SVG alone was turing-complete and became useful enough to perform general computations, and large programs were written in it.

Try downloading their code, use it on your site and tell us what their lawyers thought of that argument after you've brought to court for copyright infringement.

You are misunderstanding Stallman's argument. He doesn't have a problem with Javascript. He has a problem with non-free javascript. He probably would have even more of a problem with Apple Maps because it's an entirely proprietary program.

He's not banning JavaScript, he's banning nonfree JavaScript. I'm sure he'd be happy to use a mapping service that was licensed under the AGPL.

He has nothing against javascript. He is against non-free javascript which is just non-free software running in your browser. Using Openstreetmap is fine because you don't have to run non-free software on your computer.

Almost all proprietary javascript is obfuscated and tracks everything you do, will identify you and can compromise your system. It's no different than any other non-free software maybe with some better (but nowhere near perfect) isolation from your system provided by the browser you are using.

There are also pretty good free mobile map apps that are on f-droid.

Only Stallman would begin a "reasons to not use Google" post with a rant about modern webpages requiring JavaScript, as if there aren't a million higher priority reasons TO DUMP GOOGLE.

I can't help but feel that having such an extremist as the face of the FSF has greatly hindered it in its mission.

Stallman is the diametric opposite of Google. As such he is ground zero of the opposition. He raises awareness and has concrete if impractical solutions. The truth we seek is, IMO, somewhere close to the Google/ad network and Stallman/privacy concerns nexus.

That's like saying Fascists and Communists are polar opposites. They may disagree completely on economic policy, but they're both authoritarian assholes. Stallman is only for "freedom" as long as it's his complete and unwavering vision for his personal freedom, damn everyone else.

I don't know if I see how your analogy extends to this situation. Are you saying you like neither Stallman or Google?

Yes, they're two sides of the same, "my way or the highway" coin. Stallman has made it clear that he would destroy the right of private digital property, if he had the power.

I don't know how you draw that conclusion. The goal of the FSF, since the beginning, has been to make a computing platform that the user has full control over. They aren't the ones trying to push everyone's data into the cloud.

Last I heard Stallman isn't forcing anything on anyone, even in the loosest sense of the word. Criticism isn't authoritarian.

Uh, fascists and communist are polar opposites, but authoritarianism has nothing to do with communism by definition. If Stalin implemented an authoritarian regime while using the term "communism", that does not make communism a regime based on authoritarianism. It's nice to remember North Korea consider themselves a "People's Republic" but I'm sure you do not believe it is a democracy just because of a name or official designation; likewise, late stage western capitalism consider themselves "Representative Democracies", but a solid argument could be made comparing those nations with nazifascist states of the 1930s. Things are not so simple and simplifying such complex topics is what leads to populist governments rising. I believe we should not dumb things down. Instead, we should believe people are capable of critical thinking and we must help them see the whole picture for themselves instead of spreading McCarthist stories about the communist boogeyman.

Nobody said the list would be ordered ...

Knowing Stallman, it is ordered.

I understand Stallman's viewpoint, but his personal website looks like a litany of complaints :)

he should add deuterium to his list, too. Why does it deserve that neutron? how greedy of it.

> Pay Toilets

While I understand the moral absolute standpoint, he fails to state how he sees such free facilities being maintained. While in many areas this can be done by local councils and paid for via relevant taxation, or by requiring local businesses to provide free facilities as part of their requirements of doing business in the area, those options do not cover everywhere (and the latter will be fought hard by business lobbying groups).

I hope he isn't naive enough to expect to be able to rely on human nature meaning the general public will keep free facilities in good working order and in a sanitary state!

I prefer to give him the benefit of the doubt.

The balance is radically weighted to the other side. Unfortunately the counter-weight must be equally radical to approach any sort of balance.

He certainly strikes up some valuable discussions

Stallman lives in a particular bubble and that bubble has defined his viewpoints to a degree that he cannot fathom not being able to live his life in that way.

The question of "who does that" or "who pays for that" ultimately comes down to some form of slavery or coercion. Or the question is just avoided. Because "capitalism is evil". Or "what about wage slavery". Or something about how we have intrinsic value as sentient beings and shouldn't be required "to provide value" in order to "just survive".

And I'm like "Ok. But who cleans the public toilet?" How do you get someone to agree to that? I'll clean my toilet, sure. But I'm not cleaning the public toilet unless I'm being forced to or I'm being compensated for doing so.

Using the words "slavery" and "coercion" makes taxes sound like a horrible idea, but I don't think it's a radical idea to have clean public toilets paid for by taxes.

Its the perfect use case of taxes: a pool of money for public well being. Being able to pee freely in a sanitary area and not on the ground is benefitting the public well being.

Currently, that is how public toilets are cleaned. Taxes are used to pay the wages of the people who clean public toilets.

But if everything is a public good, then where is that money coming from?

Somehow I get the feeling people think that socialism or communism is something we can add on top of our existing system.

I don't buy that assumption.

If we're all "providing for the general welfare", why is there income?

No matter what, the answers always come down to either capitalism or slavery, but with extra steps. Either we acknowledge that certain tasks will need rewards attached to them to entice people to do them. Which just basically takes us to capitalism, but people feel that as long as we don't dick around with money, it's not really capitalism. Or we acknowledge that we'll have to force people to do certain tasks. And I'm not comfortable with that.

I don't know what happened to our other conversation - but thanks for the edit on 1984 - I must have pulled that from back to the future in my head!

I definitely do agree there are aspects of our lives going towards TNG. I think parts of our psyche are going towards 1984. There is definitely less fighting of the system per se these days. Much more surveillance, both from the corporate world and the government world. There are people still dying at the hands of the police - and I get the police are in danger, but some of that danger is definitely societally self-inflicted to some degree.

And all that being true there's definitely aspects of TNG that are like 1984 - can you imagine trying to hide a petty crime in TNG - they would have so much surveillance and data it would be near impossible.

Japan is an example where public toilets abound and are perfectly fine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toilets_in_Japan#Public_toilet...

If you agree with the moral standpoint, and it seems to be feasible at least in Japan, why not try to find ways to make it more widespread in other countries?

To be fair, there's a smaller list of core complaints: proprietary software, data privacy/ownership, et cetera.

"you live long enough to become the villain" is usually a case for every large corporation

RMS discovered SEO

To be fair, there's a lot to dislike about each of those services/companies even if you don't agree with his uncompromising stance on Free Software. I also dislike most of those companies, but for very different reasons from him (I prefer BSD-style licenses and am 10% okay with proprietary software for noncritical stuff).

Or all the Google properties, I believe YouTube has the biggest moat and the barrier to exit, for users if not creators, because of all the content on it.

Given that all this content is publicly available, And I believe there were some legal cases, such as LinkedIn v. HiQ one, which, IMNAL, but allowed scraping of public content, I wonder if an entity can legally scrape YouTube and provide non-Google access to it, while preserving creator's copyright?

Definitely. Youtube is pretty much the only Google service I still use regularly (unless chromecast counts).

I'm pretty sure you will need the creator's permission to re host the video. Otherwise it's just piracy.

In the LinkedIn case the scraping was allowed, I don't think that HiQ is creating a mirror. Also there's a case for LinkedIn not having much copywritable content there, only information.

YouTube's real moat is that after years of operation they're managing to maybe break even, even with Google's insane infra. It's just doesn't seem that profitable to host all the videos for free.

The biggest problem with google is not the JavaScript but the fact hat if they delete your account you lose everything including YouTube, gmail, saved stuff, etc. and appeal is virtually impossible. Anyone that relies on google accounts is at risk of having their account closed for arbitrary reasons.

You can take your data out before that.

No you can't. When Google blocks your login, there's no way to get your data out. This happens constantly with someone posting on Hackernews as their support channel when this happens to them.

Had no clue about Google storing purchases made connected to a gmail account. That is discomforting.

Yeah, I was pretty intimidated just looking at it for the first time. Seeing my purchases in plain view like that tipped me over into using a competing mail server.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/17/google-gmail-tracks-purchase...

Your gmail account stores the purchases.

Google can help you search the purchases.

If you see either of those as odd, then I pretty much don't get your viewpoint.

But sure, the next question is does Google explicitly USE that data in any other way. That's a different question, though.

it doesn't store the purchase, it stores the email, then parses it into a list of purchases. Also if you delete the email, the purchase list remains.

I don't need Google's help to search through my purchase emails. My emails are well-filtered into categories. And where that's not sufficient, search terms aren't difficult to use.

Google automatically collecting a list of purchases goes beyond what I expect an email provider to do.

Personally, I'm not a fan of email being plaintext and think everyone should use encrypted email (GPG, ProtonMail, Tutanota, etc). I think it's absolutely inappropriate for Google to track such things even if it has access, and it shouldn't have access IMO in the first place.

add (2015)