Google Ends Support for Lynx Browser | Hacker News Reader

Google Ends Support for Lynx Browser

102 pointszhenyi43 comments

Accessing google.com in Lynx now shows:

  Google
  Update your browser
  Your browser isn't supported anymore. To continue your search, upgrade to a recent version. [Learn more]

View on HN

I just tested changing user agents in Chrome - setting UA to a random string like "fff" gets a search page, but setting it to "Links" or "Lynx" gets "Your browser isn't supported anymore" - which is to say, this doesn't look accidental, but more like these UAs are specifically being blocked.

EDIT: Forging user agent in Links (with links -http.fake-user-agent) gets a usable homepage, but the results page just sends you to a turn-on-your-javascript page.

My impression is that support for less common browsers and other unusual uses of google products has survived due to pet interest by individual googlers and not any sort of widespread policy.

A lot of those individual googlers are longtimers who are now leaving after 15, 20 years. Google has been offering voluntary exit packages this year and I suspect the kind of people who would value Google.com working in Lynx are also the type who have made plenty of money and are disillusioned by what the company has become.

Google loves to search the result with a real URL but since I make any click on that result Google replaces it with some referral link. For example, if I want to open the result not from my connection but from Tor I need to clean each link by hand or even type it from scratch. I am sure this ban was made for poisoning UX for console guys too. What a pity I didn't know I could search from console browser and having more easy life.

This extension removes that behaviour: https://github.com/Rob--W/dont-track-me-google

I wonder to what extent visually disabled internet users are affected by this, since I can imagine at least some of them using lynx with an on-screen reader for a terminal emulator.

Not to any meaningful degree. Lynx (or other terminal-based browsers) would be an extraordinarily poor choice of browser for a non-sighted user, as it lays text out visually in the terminal (e.g. using color and indentation to distinguish between types of text) and does not provide accessibility cues. Those users are much better served by standard GUI web browsers.

What's the advantage of using lynx as opposed to Chrome/Safari and using the read aloud features?

Ask someone who is visually impaired. I know that they historically use browsers that do not support JavaScript. I also am acquainted with one developer who uses software for reading his terminal outloud, although I never asked the specifics of what he uses for web browsing or IRC for that matter. I do know that he loves the iPhone.

That said, I just found this post by a blind person who uses Lynx and complained about it the last time Google broke Lynx support:

https://blind.guru/blog/2019-11-25-endofgoogle.html

That may have been true decades ago but I think this is pretty marginal these days. All the Blind people I have talked to use mainstream browsers. GUI browsers actually provide more metadata to screen readers than something like Lynx can, and they actually work with websites people need to access.

Suggest changing title to something along lines of "Tell HN: Accessing google in lynx now shows unsupported"

Maybe, like in 2019 when a similar submission got traction, you'll be able to get it restored.

(I am no longer able to use Google with Lynx https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21626995)

Try asking the Google employee there directly if you can.

I don't feel it's particularly controversial to think that Javascript shouldn't be a requirement to use the internet. This is one step towards making that the case.

From a normal browser (don't ask me what I mean by that), with its normal/default user agent, Google search does not work without Javascript. I think at all, any more, but at some point I had got rate limited of sorts, after using the search without Javascript for a little, I got a prompt to enable it.

Seems like they are cracking down on people who use Google without JavaScript.

Try http://frogfind.com/

Server error

This is more about requiring JavaScript that blocking specific browsers. I think all the new LLM labs (plus all the tools offering SEO services for LLM-based search and answer engines) finally reached a limit of scraping that Google no longer can sustain.

Seems like elinks is affected too...bummer!

The most efficient way to search is to read the text. Waiting for images to download and then admire them cannot improve that. It looks like Google has lost relevance and is telling us, again.

> The most efficient way to search is to read the text.

"Maybe for you"

> Waiting for images to download and then admire them cannot improve that.

"It does improve the way we track you"

> It looks like Google has lost relevance and is telling us, again.

They just got patted on the back by regulators in US so they don't give a fsck.

I noticed this the other day as I (previously) used an old Firefox UA to get a more simple, streamlined legacy interface. I don't know why they did this.

Internet Explorer versions below 11 are getting the message too. Impacting those who use legacy Windows versions.

maybe this is a knee-jerk reaction but I don't see any good reason for this. At it's core Google's job is to take an input and list outputs. The marketshare of people using lynx is small enough that whatever advertising or ai extras they want to squeeze in won't be meaningfully impacted by not working on lynx.

Edit: corrected spelling error

Google's job is to sell ads, not provide accessibility to text-only browsers.

(for the record I grow to dislike g more every day, and also this move)

Internet marketers can misuse this to send lot of automated requests instead of paying for API access.

Lol, what?

Anyone can spoof UA…

Standard Google page can use JS and WASM to fingerprint device and detect bots. No-JS page cannot detect bots so it makes sense to shut it down to prevent using it for bot detection bypass.

That is besides the point.

I can spoof UA today with lynx, curl or what ever that isnt executing js.

See topic.

whoogle search is affected now.

I wonder if an Invidious or Nitter-like solution will be coming soon, as no doubt me and countless others, although still a minority, are now truly motivated to do something about it.

These bastards have truly ruined what's left of the open Internet. Google, FUCK YOU!

For search, you mean? SearXNG has been around for a while and is excellent. I have used it for years as my main search. Not sure if it supports lynx but a least they don't arbitrarily block it.

You wonder…

Just google it.

https://search.sethforprivacy.com/

How do kids today even survive online?

Just google it.

You might want to take a look at the context.

And you need to calibrate your humor ;-)

4get is pretty decent

yet another use for https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45181535

Is Google exempted from the ADA?

Safari offers https://www.apple.com/accessibility/ features, so I'm pretty sure someone with visual disability can access google no issues.

Seriously? Apple only?

But Linux! And *BSD! Or some Illumos.

Or in general just some effin textmode terminal, running whatever is able to run Lynx/Links/Elinks(2?).

On Linux you use Orca with your browser of choice. On Windows you use JAWS or NVDA with your browser of choice. All major browsers support screen readers.

Related discussion earlier this year:

Google begins requiring JavaScript for Google Search

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42747092

When resources are an issue, this does matter. I use to store previous Lynx/ Links search results in history lists, to allow browsing within local files later. Creating such lists with Firefox is a mess. (This browser tends to block my Thinpad for hours.) Really sad. Google was a key to the internet. Torsten

Reply on news.ycombinator.com