
Reasons Not to Use Google (2015) - pearjuice
https://stallman.org/google.html
======
jasode
_> 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?

~~~
millstone
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](https://twitter.com/rvdsteege/status/1139264604918485005)

~~~
eloisant
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.

~~~
adrian_mrd
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 :)

~~~
hiq
You can read [https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-
trap.html](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

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

~~~
cycloptic
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.

~~~
adrian_mrd
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?

~~~
cycloptic
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.

------
5trokerac3
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.

~~~
Spearchucker
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.

~~~
5trokerac3
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.

~~~
zucker42
I don't know if I see how your analogy extends to this situation. Are you
saying you like neither Stallman or Google?

~~~
5trokerac3
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.

~~~
cycloptic
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.

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

"What's bad about: Airbnb | Amazon | Amtrak | Ancestry | Apple | Discord |
Ebooks | Eventbrite | Evernote | Facebook | Google | Intel | LinkedIn | Lyft |
Meetup | Microsoft | Netflix | Patreon | Pay Toilets | Skype | Slack | Spotify
| Twitter | Uber | Wendy's |"

~~~
dspillett
_> 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!

~~~
bena
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.

~~~
zucker42
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.

~~~
wasdfff
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.

------
yumraj
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?

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

------
paulpauper
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.

~~~
mav3rick
You can take your data out before that.

~~~
jeromegv
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.

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

~~~
VikingCoder
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.

~~~
magashna
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.

------
ChrisArchitect
add (2015)

read more here

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13342941](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13342941)

------
asdf21
Can someone explain this quote to me?

>Then again, maybe you shouldn't eat any fast food. It is meant for fasting,
not for eating.

------
paulpauper
it must be a lot of fun being with this guy , not being able to use so many
services

~~~
magashna
This is THE Richard Stallman. He would be fascinating to hang out with and
hear his thoughts.

~~~
_Donny
His pedantic personality is unbearable to me.

He held a talk at my university recently. During the QA, every time a student
asked RMS a question, he would spend 2 minutes correcting the formulation of
the question, and then dismissing the actual question with a snarky remark.

For instance, one student asked something about RMS being the "CEO" of FSF,
followed by snarky remarks by RMS that "FSF is not a company and that he is
actually the president". (I might remember wrong, but it was something along
those lines)

I understand and respect him and his beliefs, but his personality just annoys
me.

~~~
guenthert
RMS might appear a bit difficult at times, but I don't think that was a good
example. Other left-leaning founders of public benefit organizations might be
mildly insulted by being called CEO as well.

------
rhacker
What we are building is the perfect society for the rule of individualism.
Capitalism is the god, greed is the motivation, and not being liable is how we
be careful.

There's no way out. Even TNG predicted WWIII entire global population and for
humanity to suffer its most embarrassing chapter to get out of it:

[https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/World_War_III](https://memory-
alpha.fandom.com/wiki/World_War_III)

There are other modes of life, based on trust of mankind, instead of fear of
it. That's the other thing TNG shows - all those people in Starfleet - they
aren't being paid to be on that ship. They're trying to show that humanity is
capable of post-capitalism. It doesn't have to be this way.

(That's the planet Stallman lives - or at least wants to)

~~~
bena
The ship also cleans itself.

The Federation is a post-scarcity society. They've figured out how to change
matter into energy and back again. That does change a lot of things. We don't
get to the Federation without solving scarcity.

And while no one is being paid to be on that ship (although that is debatable
as there does seem to be some form of currency that individual Starfleet
members receive and use), there is competition to be on that ship.

 _Being_ on that ship is the compensation for the work. Being one of the few
selected to essentially be in this sort of elite class is the privilege.

And even on the ship, there are differences between crew members. The
captain's quarters are better than the lower officers. The captain has his own
private office just off the bridge.

And being a television show and work of fiction, they get to gloss over a ton
of stuff. The acquisition and creation of the materials to build something
like the Enterprise is as much a fantasy in the work as is the fact that they
can replicate Earth-like gravity in the middle of space.

~~~
rhacker
I get all that - I am just kinda hoping for you know, something between what
we have and what we look forward to / dream about. I won't be disappointed if
we go further away from 1985 and closer to TNG even if we never reach it.

~~~
bena
I think you mean 1984.

And our current system _is_ driving us more towards TNG than 1984.

Things are better now. We're more tolerant. More peaceful. By just about any
measure you can take, we're becoming better.

------
raverbashing
To Stallman one of the only technologies that's ok is Emacs running in some
linux distro where your wifi might not work out of the box.

Wired connections are also a problem for him as well since the provider has
your identity and they can trace you.

Stallman's rants, while they might not be technically wrong, should be read in
the context of someone whose mindset is not the most positive one.

~~~
rhacker
Meh, that's subjective - he's extremely cogent if you watch or read his talks.
If you turn your mind to think that the society we are in is not the
healthiest one, then he's very healthy.

------
ta29082019
I found it interesting that OP chose to post the page for Google specifically,
when there are many other services/companies listed on that page.

Turns out, pearjuice is a Trump supporter
([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12675679](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12675679),
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12741738](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12741738),
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12675971](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12675971))
and hence has a reason to target Google, which is known for its employees
opinions against Trump ([https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/12/technology/leaked-
google-...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/12/technology/leaked-google-video-
trump.html)) and conservatives in general.

This does not take away from the validity of the points made on the link
itself, but I thought it worth mentioning.

~~~
Nicksil
Distrust and dislike for Google transcends political ideology.

