Modern Web Woes - I'm mad at the internet

[Smaug's Smokey Hole 2]

I will never understand this phenomena, it takes less then 2 minutes even for a less technologically inept user to look up "ad block", click the Chrome or Firefox or Safari extension page, hit "Install",

Those that go down that route do exactly that. They google it(adblocker) in the way they understand it, click and install whatever comes up in the first 1-3 search results because those are the ones google recommends and now they're running some shit that doesn't do anything and they're running both McAfee and Avast for some reason!

edit: did you know that McAfee has an alternative way to log into windows that shows up on the log-in screen and it wants to register your biometrics? I didn't but then I visited a friend a couple of days ago.

 

[Big Fish]

I remember being able to download textures without being prompted with Google logins and premium subscriptions on every single corner.

I got prompted with this window when I tried to download a texture after making an account on a temporary e-mail. For fuck's sake, don't make something as simple as downloading a free texture for your project a fucking hassle.

 

[Dante Alighieri]

AHH UGLY CORPORATE ART

 

[Steve Martin Short]

The problem with getting normies to install ad blockers is that they don't see what the big deal really even is. Ads on the radio, on ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, etc, ads in the magazines and newspapers, why's it so different online? Because you can explain tracking and profiles and the like until you're blue in the face, and they still don't get it. An ad is an ad.

 

[Don Yagon]

Eat my putrid chode. I haven't even done as much as making an account, let alone calling someone a nigger or whatever warrants said network security.

 

[NSA Intern]

I will use uBlock on chrome because I'm grandfathered in with all the shit I use until I physically cannot anymore and then I will find a browser that allows it. I haven't seen an ad on my desktop in over a decade and I don't plan on that ever changing.

Chrome enshittified even worse recently. Completely ignoring the adblock issue, which I fixed easy because I was already in dev mode and told google to suck it, they've made it so the arrow keys no longer apply to the overhead search bar and instead highlight the unneccessary bullshit around it like Google Lens (which in and of itself is an inferior version of the long-gone google images reverse image search). Want to go back two characters with the arrow keys to fix a spelling error? Can't, fuck you, click on the search bar directly three times until it stops highlighting shit. See the search result you want pop up in the autocomplete two rows down? Can't press the down key twice, fuck you, click on it directly you stupid cunt. Want to autocomplete an almost correct search you see and then edit it to what you actually want? Can't do either of those things with ease anymore, fuck you. I am currently MATI.

 

[Chen Stirner]

Considering all the web browser woes in this thread, I decided to test out a few lightweight/minimalist browsers to see if they can be viable alternatives. (Spoiler: Not really.)

Lynx, Links, ELinks, w3m

These are all text-based browsers. They're fine if you just want to read, but since images are a lot more prominent on the modern internet, you'll be missing out. Links and w3m do have image support, but they still don't have interactivity, which means you can't leave comments or the like. Read-only for you.

Dillo

I know the name is one letter removed from Dildo, but it's absurdly lightweight. The reason for this is that it doesn't run Javascript at all. The problem is that half the modern internet relies heavily on Javascript, which means this thing won't work on those sites.

NetSurf

This thing crashes all the damn time. Useless.

BadWolf

I've heard good things about this browser, but unfortunately, it was developed by a gay furry, so I want nothing to do with it. It also refuses to compile on my machine, so I can't use it even if I wanted to.

Qutebrowser

This thing features Vim-like keybindings, which I like. What I don't like is its bad performance. It's slow and it chokes on large web sites. This might be explained by the fact that it's written entirely in Python.

Surf

Just like all other Suckless software, this thing is barebones, and the only way to make changes and give it any sort of functionality is by editing the source code. Most people don't have time for anything like that.

Vimb

This one is the least bad of all the minimal web browsers I tested. Note that I said least bad, not the best. It has Vim-like keybindings, you can customize said keybindings, it's quite fast, it allows you to use a config file instead of editing the source code, and it has bookmarking. The downside is that it can be quite buggy. There were a few moments when the Vim keys stop working and I'm only able to navigate with the mouse. I even got a segmentation fault at one point. It also doesn't have any ad-blocking, but that can be fixed with something like pi-hole.

Conclusion

The developers of these minimal browsers have lofty and noble goals, but unfortunately, the modern internet has been rigged against them. It's far too reliant on Javascript. It was engineered by people who care more about flashy graphics than functionality. It laughs at any notion of optimization or minimal design. Looks like I'll be sticking with Brave for the foreseeable future. Sure, it uses the bloated Chromium engine, but at least it has memory-saving and ad-blocking features. I wish we could go back to a simpler internet, but unless you want to move to Tor, Gemini, or some other sparsely populated backwater, it's nothing more than a pipe dream.

 

[ToroidalBoat]

I remember being able to download textures without being prompted with Google logins and premium subscriptions on every single corner.

That quota crap is BS.

Also there is one AI upscaling site that only lets you upscale 3-5 pics for free, and then never, ever again (AFAIK).

 

[GNU Abyss]

NetSurf

This thing crashes all the damn time. Useless.

You can try a fork called Neosurf. Notably missing is also the Ladybird browser.

Conclusion

The developers of these minimal browsers have lofty and noble goals, but unfortunately, the modern internet has been rigged against them. It's far too reliant on Javascript. It was engineered by people who care more about flashy graphics than functionality. It laughs at any notion of optimization or minimal design. Looks like I'll be sticking with Brave for the foreseeable future. Sure, it uses the bloated Chromium engine, but at least it has memory-saving and ad-blocking features. I wish we could go back to a simpler internet, but unless you want to move to Tor, Gemini, or some other sparsely populated backwater, it's nothing more than a pipe dream.

Browser developers often use misleading language to make you believe they're doing something greater. Oh, it's a minimalist browser? Read the full description and its dependencies and you'll see it's mostly based on the same two bloated monstrosities - WebKit and Blink (sometimes Gecko as seen with Floorp). They're minimalist in the sense that there is less code attached to that one giant pile. If you don't want those, this disqualifies BadWolf, Qutebrowser, Surf and Vimb.

Trying to implement the entire Web standard is insane because it's complicated and impenetrable by design. Use Chrome or die, sponsored by the W3C (funded by Google). You can, however, as a website author, make your page run on alternative browsers by using light JS that doesn't choke outside of the V8 engine and picking non-obscure bits of HTML5 + HTML4 Strict. Naturally, this would also mean you're writing this all by hand, no framework faggotry. You'd also have the inevitable roadblock of e-commerce integration.

 

[Lard Shart]

Websites that make their own smooth scrolling fucking suck, there are browser settings where you can turn it on/off. Even worse are sites that disable zooming. It's like they actively want to make the user experience worse.
More retarded stuff: light/dark mode switch button, useless hamburger menu (where just showing all links upfront is not detrimental), loading spinners which take more time to render than the content itself.
It is all pushed by a class of web developers who come from an art background or those who need everything to look "fancy" to make up for the lack of quality content.

 

[306h4Ge5eJUJ]

loading spinners which take more time to render than the content itself

I think this started as a search engine optimization scam tactic and then took on a life of its own as it got cargo culted. Google used to measure website performance based on when the largest change happened, so the usual parasites added fullscreen loading screens up front to prevent their slow-loading content from being treated as the largest change. It should be legal to shoot anybody who works in SEO by the way.

 

[TheHarbinger]

I think this started as a search engine optimization scam tactic and then took on a life of its own as it got cargo culted. Google used to measure website performance based on when the largest change happened, so the usual parasites added fullscreen loading screens up front to prevent their slow-loading content from being treated as the largest change. It should be legal to shoot anybody who works in SEO by the way.

This is how those 'AMP' links work as well. Where they load the tracking and advertising features of a site before anything else. And depending on how your privacy or adblocking settings are configured might brick the entire site.

 

[ditto]

Google used to measure website performance based on when the largest change happened

It also games the user "bounce" metric which counts if a user has immediately clicked a search result, realized it wasn't what they want then gone back.

That's why sites have a 'Continue Reading.." type link after about a line or two of text. It keeps you on the site long enough for Google to think the user has found what they want.

 

[30+GameOvers]

archive.today is down, likely due to the election tomorrow.
This is bad news, it's had a good track record so far, but it if it can be taken down now, it can be taken down in the future as well. I've seen many people put all their eggs in one basket and archiving everything using archive.today, but if that service goes down then those links are useless.
We need alternative methods to easily archive content on the internet.
Edit: "Server Error"
Wonder how likely it is that the servers were straight up wiped instead of just being down

 

[VasonJoorhees]

"Google Lens" is aids:


Why does it open in this side tab instead of just opening in a separate window like it did for years, was that just too convenient and easy to use? Reverse image search died for this shit? Whoever implemented this unironically needs to kill themselves.

 

[ditto]

"Google Lens" is aids:

Good luck trying to get it to identify people, even celebrities, without getting that "Results for people are limited" error.

 

[ToroidalBoat]

More and more sites seem to be going nonfunctional unless you use very specific browsers (maybe with specific anti-privacy settings).

And to add more insult to that, a hotline for a service a website is to always recommends you use that likely non-functional website.

 

[boards of canada]

More and more sites seem to be going nonfunctional unless you use very specific browsers (maybe with specific anti-privacy settings).

Using a less popular, less "powerful" browser like Pale Moon or Seamonkey will make you realize how bloated modern websites are with unnecessary animations, javascript, graphics and more. There is also so much padding everywhere that makes it harder to actually visually access the information you're looking for, not to mention how ugly and unappealing and childish it is.
Why can't we just go back to simple black-text-on-white-background HTML sites? It's beautiful when compared to bloated kitschy fancy modern sites that withhold information in the name of fanciness. I want simplicity. No big shiny buttons or childishly simple 4-word sentences in size 48 and fucking PADDING. It is insulting.

 

[ToroidalBoat]

Why can't we just go back to simple black-text-on-white-background HTML sites?

I like black on grey, which is how it was way back in the day.

Early Websites 1991–1995 - Web Design Museum (adblock needed?)

 

[prollyanotherlurker]

Idk if this is the best place for this. Or if there is another thread more related. Linking it just because of it showing how the iPhones camera is constantly taking images about 3/4 through the video.