Talk:Google: Difference between revisions

(13 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)

Line 64:

*[https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/android/addon/google-search-fixer Addon]

Recently, they started blocking users who enable Desktop-Mode to use Google Lens without the app, saying "Update your browser". Desktop is necessary, because when G Search detects the device is Android, it redirects to the Google app (or Play Store, if not installed)

Recently, they started blocking users who enable Desktop-Mode to use Google Lens without the app, saying "Update your browser". Desktop is necessary, because when G Search detects the device is Android, [[Forced_app_download|it redirects]] to the Google app (or Play Store, if not installed)

===JS===

Both Google search and Gmail login (not just Gmail, all G services) "require" JavaScript to work. This wasn't the case in 2023 (not sure if this began on 2024 or 2025) [[User:Rudxain|Rudxain]] ([[User talk:Rudxain|talk]]) 20:51, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Both Google search and Gmail login (not just Gmail, all G services) "require" [[JavaScript]] to work. This wasn't the case in 2023 (not sure if this began on 2024 or 2025) [[User:Rudxain|Rudxain]] ([[User talk:Rudxain|talk]]) 20:51, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

:Rip my noscript extension, we need to get this on the wiki RIGHT NOW!! :( (joke)

:Seriously though, if it is actually necessary and there are reliable sources, then sure! [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 06:07, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

::lmao. yeah I agree. It's not that big of a deal. But it raises privacy and security concerns, and it's related to [[bloatware]]:

::*https://idlewords.com/talks/website_obesity.htm

::*https://tonsky.me/blog/js-bloat

::[[User:Rudxain|Rudxain]] ([[User talk:Rudxain|talk]]) 06:28, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

::BTW, I wrote an (unfinished) blog-post about this with 20+ sources:

::*https://github.com/Rudxain/blog/blob/main/post/js-abuse.md

::*https://rudxain.github.io/blog/post/js-abuse

::The 1st link [https://github.com/Rudxain/Rudxain.github.io/issues/17 will break].

::When the 2nd breaks, remove the "/post" part.

::I'm posting both because the 1st one is "better" (for now) [[User:Rudxain|Rudxain]] ([[User talk:Rudxain|talk]]) 22:01, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

:::as a noscript user, I agree [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 06:36, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

==G forces screen-saver to have privacy-policy; they get roasted instead==

Line 75:

Line 89:

==they REALLY despise ad-blockers==

It's worth mentioning that G forbids any apps (on Play Store) that have the ''mere capability'' of blocking ads, even if the apps aren't presented as "ad-blockers". For example, [https://github.com/M66B/NetGuard/blob/eac1f8a29f56241965a75ae3e25eef9c715a7137/README.md?plain=1#L39 NetGuard], which has a <code>[[wikipedia:Hosts_(file)|/etc/hosts]]</code>-like domain-blocking feature in the GitHub release, was forced to be crippled in the play-store release, on the grounds of "system stability" or something (I can't remember)

It's worth mentioning that G forbids any apps (on Play Store) that have the ''mere capability'' of blocking ads, even if the apps aren't presented as "ad-blockers". For example, [https://github.com/M66B/NetGuard/blob/eac1f8a29f56241965a75ae3e25eef9c715a7137/README.md?plain=1#L39 NetGuard], which has a <code>[[wikipedia:Hosts_(file)|/etc/hosts]]</code>-like domain-blocking feature in the GitHub release, was [https://github.com/M66B/NetGuard/blob/8a60a7b3f43af5db21d4bd4512bc541d21a8fc5d/ADBLOCKING.md?plain=1#L6 forced to be crippled in the play-store release] ([https://github.com/M66B/NetGuard/blob/8a60a7b3f43af5db21d4bd4512bc541d21a8fc5d/ADBLOCKING.md?plain=1#L105 alt line]), on the grounds of "system stability" or something (I can't remember)

[https://reddit.com/r/Android/comments/15y7g70/google_is_going_to_remove_netguard_from_the_play/ See also] [[User:Rudxain|Rudxain]] ([[User talk:Rudxain|talk]]) 19:05, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

:Eeeek! That is definitely worth mentioning, maybe in its own article? [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|<i><b>AnotherConsumerRightsPerson</b></i>]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 19:18, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

::I'm not sure if it really needs its own article; why would it? [[User:Rudxain|Rudxain]] ([[User talk:Rudxain|talk]]) 12:12, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

:I've linked this topic [[Talk:Android Data Collection|there]], but it didn't show up [[Special:WhatLinksHere/Talk:Google|here]] [[User:Rudxain|Rudxain]] ([[User talk:Rudxain|talk]]) 12:20, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

::What Links Here doesn’t work like that. It counts all links to that place with the hyperlink format. So for example, if I link to the main google article like this: [[Main Page]], checking [[Special:WhatLinksHere/Main Page|the WLH for the main page]] this will show up in that list as I linked to it (if you get what I mean). [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 16:07, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

:::Thanks! It works now. I assumed the <code>#</code> didn't work for internal links [[User:Rudxain|Rudxain]] ([[User talk:Rudxain|talk]]) 05:31, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

== G+ Name Policy controversy (2011) ==

* [https://stilgherrian.com/only-one-name/right-google-you-stupid-cunts-this-is-simply-not-on/ Stilgherrian's blog post]

* [https://eev.ee/blog/2011/09/05/google-postdecrement/ eevee's blog post]

[[User:Rudxain|Rudxain]] ([[User talk:Rudxain|talk]]) 19:10, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

== Glaring mishandling of clear-cut hacking cases ==

So far I have one incident that could be escalated into a paragraph in Google's article if there are any more similar incidents with comparable level of documentation.

TL;DR Google refuses to restore access to a known youtuber's gmail account despite huge public backlash, highly suspicious internet traffic, all conceivable proof of ownership and big public backlash. They even reached out to ask the hacked person to delete their original tweet (for their own safety ofc!) but can't do jack because of an apparently existing loophole that hackers used - claiming the account under the parental control of...itself?

Here are the relevant vids with info on the case

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOz6P91BTzU - the original incident report

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAevKYgCh5s - follow up after public backlash.

Sorry this is my first contribution to this place and I hope you guys can give me pointers on how to convert this info into something more useful and whether it belongs here in the first place. And if it does I'll try to invite the actual victim and the person who made the vids here so that they can cooperate and add more info. Cheers! [[User:Cowbless|Cowbless]] ([[User talk:Cowbless|talk]]) 09:34, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

@@ Line 64: / Line 64: @@
 *[https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/android/addon/google-search-fixer Addon]
-Recently, they started blocking users who enable Desktop-Mode to use Google Lens without the app, saying "Update your browser". Desktop is necessary, because when G Search detects the device is Android, it redirects to the Google app (or Play Store, if not installed)
+Recently, they started blocking users who enable Desktop-Mode to use Google Lens without the app, saying "Update your browser". Desktop is necessary, because when G Search detects the device is Android, [[Forced_app_download|it redirects]] to the Google app (or Play Store, if not installed)
 ===JS===
-Both Google search and Gmail login (not just Gmail, all G services) "require" JavaScript to work. This wasn't the case in 2023 (not sure if this began on 2024 or 2025) [[User:Rudxain|Rudxain]] ([[User talk:Rudxain|talk]]) 20:51, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
+Both Google search and Gmail login (not just Gmail, all G services) "require" [[JavaScript]] to work. This wasn't the case in 2023 (not sure if this began on 2024 or 2025) [[User:Rudxain|Rudxain]] ([[User talk:Rudxain|talk]]) 20:51, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
+:Rip my noscript extension, we need to get this on the wiki RIGHT NOW!! :( (joke)
+:Seriously though, if it is actually necessary and there are reliable sources, then sure! [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 06:07, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
+::lmao. yeah I agree. It's not that big of a deal. But it raises privacy and security concerns, and it's related to [[bloatware]]:
+::*https://idlewords.com/talks/website_obesity.htm
+::*https://tonsky.me/blog/js-bloat
+::[[User:Rudxain|Rudxain]] ([[User talk:Rudxain|talk]]) 06:28, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
+::BTW, I wrote an (unfinished) blog-post about this with 20+ sources:
+::*https://github.com/Rudxain/blog/blob/main/post/js-abuse.md
+::*https://rudxain.github.io/blog/post/js-abuse
+::The 1st link [https://github.com/Rudxain/Rudxain.github.io/issues/17 will break].
+::When the 2nd breaks, remove the "/post" part.
+::I'm posting both because the 1st one is "better" (for now) [[User:Rudxain|Rudxain]] ([[User talk:Rudxain|talk]]) 22:01, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
+:::as a noscript user, I agree [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 06:36, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
 ==G forces screen-saver to have privacy-policy; they get roasted instead==
@@ Line 75: / Line 89: @@
 ==they REALLY despise ad-blockers==
-It's worth mentioning that G forbids any apps (on Play Store) that have the ''mere capability'' of blocking ads, even if the apps aren't presented as "ad-blockers". For example, [https://github.com/M66B/NetGuard/blob/eac1f8a29f56241965a75ae3e25eef9c715a7137/README.md?plain=1#L39 NetGuard], which has a <code>[[wikipedia:Hosts_(file)|/etc/hosts]]</code>-like domain-blocking feature in the GitHub release, was forced to be crippled in the play-store release, on the grounds of "system stability" or something (I can't remember)
+It's worth mentioning that G forbids any apps (on Play Store) that have the ''mere capability'' of blocking ads, even if the apps aren't presented as "ad-blockers". For example, [https://github.com/M66B/NetGuard/blob/eac1f8a29f56241965a75ae3e25eef9c715a7137/README.md?plain=1#L39 NetGuard], which has a <code>[[wikipedia:Hosts_(file)|/etc/hosts]]</code>-like domain-blocking feature in the GitHub release, was [https://github.com/M66B/NetGuard/blob/8a60a7b3f43af5db21d4bd4512bc541d21a8fc5d/ADBLOCKING.md?plain=1#L6 forced to be crippled in the play-store release] ([https://github.com/M66B/NetGuard/blob/8a60a7b3f43af5db21d4bd4512bc541d21a8fc5d/ADBLOCKING.md?plain=1#L105 alt line]), on the grounds of "system stability" or something (I can't remember)
 [https://reddit.com/r/Android/comments/15y7g70/google_is_going_to_remove_netguard_from_the_play/ See also] [[User:Rudxain|Rudxain]] ([[User talk:Rudxain|talk]]) 19:05, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
 :Eeeek! That is definitely worth mentioning, maybe in its own article? [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|<i><b>AnotherConsumerRightsPerson</b></i>]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 19:18, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
+::I'm not sure if it really needs its own article; why would it? [[User:Rudxain|Rudxain]] ([[User talk:Rudxain|talk]]) 12:12, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
+:I've linked this topic [[Talk:Android Data Collection|there]], but it didn't show up [[Special:WhatLinksHere/Talk:Google|here]] [[User:Rudxain|Rudxain]] ([[User talk:Rudxain|talk]]) 12:20, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
+::What Links Here doesn’t work like that. It counts all links to that place with the hyperlink format. So for example, if I link to the main google article like this: [[Main Page]], checking [[Special:WhatLinksHere/Main Page|the WLH for the main page]] this will show up in that list as I linked to it (if you get what I mean). [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|'''''AnotherConsumerRightsPerson''''']] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 16:07, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
+:::Thanks! It works now. I assumed the <code>#</code> didn't work for internal links [[User:Rudxain|Rudxain]] ([[User talk:Rudxain|talk]]) 05:31, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
+== G+ Name Policy controversy (2011) ==
+* [https://stilgherrian.com/only-one-name/right-google-you-stupid-cunts-this-is-simply-not-on/ Stilgherrian's blog post]
+* [https://eev.ee/blog/2011/09/05/google-postdecrement/ eevee's blog post]
+[[User:Rudxain|Rudxain]] ([[User talk:Rudxain|talk]]) 19:10, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
+== Glaring mishandling of clear-cut hacking cases  ==
+So far I have one incident that could be escalated into a paragraph in Google's article if there are any more similar incidents with comparable level of documentation.
+TL;DR Google refuses to restore access to a known youtuber's gmail account despite huge public backlash, highly suspicious internet traffic, all conceivable proof of ownership and big public backlash. They even reached out to ask the hacked person to delete their original tweet (for their own safety ofc!) but can't do jack because of an apparently existing loophole that hackers used - claiming the account under the parental control of...itself?
+Here are the relevant vids with info on the case
+https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOz6P91BTzU - the original incident report
+https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAevKYgCh5s - follow up after public backlash.
+Sorry this is my first contribution to this place and I hope you guys can give me pointers on how to convert this info into something more useful and whether it belongs here in the first place. And if it does I'll try to invite the actual victim and the person who made the vids here so that they can cooperate and add more info. Cheers!  [[User:Cowbless|Cowbless]] ([[User talk:Cowbless|talk]]) 09:34, 15 March 2026 (UTC)