The old-fashioned way: breathe a sigh of relief, and move on to less egregious sites.
The moment somebody sends me a Google Drive link (about three times a week), w3m goes back on the shelf and I have to pick up a modern standard-compliant browser.
Extreme positions and interpretations are for nutters.
In the specific case of Google Drive access, I like the Ruby client.
I see this as congruent to the old-school Lotus Notes/Domino architecture, and not really about the web at all.
There's no value in being an ideologue about it. My reasons for browsing with JS disabled-by-default are fourfold: 1. to defeat many/most active tracking methods, 2. as a sort of passive ad blocker, 3. because it's very often much faster, and 4. for written content JS dependence is moderately correlated to a poor S:N ratio. None of that has much bearing on an office application.
I would love a less cluttered and less resource intensive web experience. I also know is unrealistic in 2022 to have a normal day of browser activity without needing JavaScript and / or CSS.
If I can use a text browser much of the time and easily switch to a full browser only when I need it, that sounds like the best of both worlds. Lots of what I browse would likely be even nicer text only. This very site comes to mind.
Because using a 'regular modern browser' is not a superset; it also lacks certain things, such as freedom from JavaScript, freedom from some forms of tracking and it is incompatible with the terminal or other text-based environments. Some folks find those things to be worthwhile.
The linked article mentions some reasons. I use it, because it fits my console-focused work style. It's blanzigly fast, removes all the distractions like unnecessary images and ads, doesn't require me to take my hands of the keyboard, works very well if I'm working on a mobile hotspot, can be used while being ssh'd into a server... and because opening the side in a regular modern browser is only a key press away.