For years, Google Maps has been a go-to tool for millions worldwide, seamlessly integrated into search results for instant access to directions, locations, and more. But if you’ve noticed something missing recently, you’re not imagining things. Due to European Union regulations, Google has been forced to remove its Maps functionality from its search results, marking a significant shift in how we interact with the tech giant’s ecosystem.

  • Vinny_93@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 days ago

    I understand the why of this but this is not an improvement. I suppose search engines should ask you which maps provider you want and then show results based on that.

    • Cavemanfreak@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 day ago

      I suppose search engines should ask you which maps provider you want and then show results based on that.

      Google could have done that, but they chose to go this router to inconvenience users, so that they then could blame the EU for this.

    • mannycalavera@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 days ago

      Like… and hear me out… save the preference with some sort of Cookie technology? Do you think the EU would be up for that?

      • jonathan@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 days ago

        I can’t tell whether you’re being intentionally ironic. Yes the EU would be up for it. The EU didn’t ban cookies. Putting it simply, you do not need a cookie banner if you aren’t tracking people.

        • emax_gomax@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 days ago

          Pretty much. Although I continue to be annoyed this ever even needed to be asked. There’s literally a browser setting to communicate this “do not track”. EU really should’ve just forced everyone to respect it :/.

          • tal@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            2 days ago

            I agree – and before DnT, there was P3P, which also would have done it – but it is what it is at the moment.

            I’m mostly exasperated with it because I wipe all cookies each browser restart, which is a much more-reliable and less-obnoxious solution than the EU’s regulatory approach of trying to convince the remote end not to make use of its ability to set them. If you do that, you get the cookie banner every time on sites that show it, which means that the cookie banner regulation has made my experience rather worse. And unfortunately, some sites show the banner to non-EU-based users – we don’t elect EU representatives, but we still get some spillover from their policies.

            There’s some Firefox plugin that will try to hide the cookie banners:

            https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/istilldontcareaboutcookies/

            EDIT: Yeah, from the description on there, the author is doing exactly what I am with the “not retaining cookies” approach, and smacking into how poorly that interacts with the cookie banner regulation:

            The EU regulations require that any website using tracking cookies must get user’s permission before installing them. These warnings appear on most websites until the visitor agrees with the website’s terms and conditions. Imagine how irritating that becomes when you surf anonymously or if you delete cookies automatically every time you close the browser.

        • TJA!@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 days ago

          To make it even more clear let me rephrase it:

          If you want to store sth like that, it would be classified as functional and you wouldn’t even need a cookie banner for it.

          Only if you want to use it to track people you need to notify them

        • Pechente@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 days ago

          Im a web dev and I build almost all of my sites without cookie banner unless they’re really required (YouTube embeds, invasive tracking etc) and when I don’t include a banner, people usually think I forgot it.

          It’s a shame that most people think the internet just has to be crap now and every site needs some dark pattern banner to track its users.

          • Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 days ago

            There needs to be a browser that auto blocks all cookies, and all cookie banners. You can whitelist the sites you want. Beyond that, your browser tells all the web “fuck you!”

            • Scrollone@feddit.it
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 day ago

              Firefox + uBlock Origin does that for me. You just need to enable the Annoyances filter.

            • cashew@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 days ago

              Brave does mostly a good job with this. Though some cookie banners still slip through, and other functional popups get blocked. Still makea browsing the Web more palatable.

              • Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                2 days ago

                I’m unclear why you’re being downvoted for sharing reccomendations. So, because I’ve experienced similiar issues when I DID understand the downvotes, I’ll assume someone downvoted you because Brave isn’t their browser of choice, and they’re sitting at their computer like “NO! NOT BRAVE! WHY DOESN’T EVERYONE USE (insert obscure browser which may actually be a better experience, but only 50 people have ever heard of) INSTEAD??? WHY MUST THEY RECCOMEND THE MAINSTREAM BROWSERS???”

                And then 3pm comes, and it’s time for him to give his sheets to his mommy for the weekly laundry.

                Meanwhile, me, someone who’s used Firefox exclusively since 2004, is thinking “Hmmmm, maybe I SHOULD branch out and try other browsers! I’m sure I could try Brave? I’ll be…BRAVE…enough to try a new browser!”

                And then I give myself a big hearty laugh as I drink a sip of my hot chocolate, and proceed to live the rest of my life not giving a shit why you were downvoted. Oh, also, have an upvote!

                • rumba@lemmy.zip
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 day ago

                  Yeah, you’re not allowed to say anything positive about Brave on Lemmy. Instant downvote. Then downvotes for talking about it being down voted.

                  It’s like you said something neutral about AI, if you don’t shit on it, they brigade you down.

                  Yes it’s very good at eliminating cookies, it tracks and sells your data, but not as widely as the big guys.

                  It’s very good at fingerprint resistance too.

                  Firefox with UO, privacy badger is very close to it’s level of perf.

                  You can install stuff to block your telemetry in just about any browser, knock out a lot of your tracking but still get tracked by your browser maker, your OS, your ISP…

                  But talk about brave, they just get pissy.

      • Vinny_93@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 days ago

        If you want to store your map preferences, save the preferences to your account and make sure you’re logged in.

        I’m not saying anything like this is preferable or whatever but there’s also little sense in removing all semblance of user experience in favour of removing power from tech giants.

    • sunzu2@thebrainbin.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 days ago

      I suppose search engines should ask you which maps provider you want and then show results based on that.

      Why would they ever enable choice. That’s not very capitalism

      • BassTurd@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 days ago

        If they allowed users to select a default, almost everyone would select Google maps and get a better experience. By not giving the user a choice everyone loses, because Google maps is still going to be the top option. I’m surprised that this functionality either doesn’t exist already or isn’t allowed, because capitalism.

        • Bob@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 day ago

          almost everyone would select Google maps and get a better experience.

          Spoken like someone who’s never used a different map provider!

          • BassTurd@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 day ago

            Can you give me an alternative that you truely think is better than google maps, not just alternative, something that is objectively better?

            • Bob@feddit.nl
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              9 hours ago

              Objective ways Openstreetmap is better:

              • More regularly updated (one street I used to live on in Amsterdam – a cosmopolis – has only recently been added to Google Maps, whereas I used Openstreetmap to find my way there when I moved in four years ago).
              • People who update it get credited rather than an already disgustingly rich company; you can submit edits to Google Maps but they often don’t get implemented, at least not with any alacrity, and they keep the intellectual property rights to the data you submit.
              • Better for privacy (probably goes without saying).
              • Open-source, for what it’s worth.
              • The map is colour-coded and actually easily legible rather than every way being a white or light grey, sometimes hair-thin line on a white background.
              • Actually useful for people not sitting in cars as it shows pedestrian ways, cycleways, parks in detail, crossings, gates, stiles, etc.
              • Useful for non-navigation purposes, in fact it’s the map of choice for people gathering map data.
              • The directions don’t send you the wrong way up one-way streets or along roads you can’t ride your vehicle on, among other mistakes.
              • Openstreetmap shows public amenities like bins, water fountains, benches, etc. I’ve used it to help my dad who has Parkinson’s get a quick bit of rest while visiting cities, for example.
              • Google Maps is admittedly quicker for looking for branches of big companies, but you can do that without a map, and Google Maps is chock full of random businesses registered at people’s homes and searches can be obfuscated because richer companies pay to come higher in the search results.
              • Google Maps has public transport info, but the info is so often wrong that I would seriously advise against using it.
                • I used to work at a train station and people would come up asking why the train shown on Google Maps wasn’t showing on the departure board;
                • I’ve seen people miss the last train of the night because Google Maps said it was leaving later than it actually was;
                • it often doesn’t show the quickest or easiest route and you can’t refine the search the way you can on public transport apps,
                • etc. etc. I’d say the info on Google Maps is so bad that it makes Openstreetmap better because it doesn’t tempt you with the false promise.
              • The other features Google Maps is garnished with aren’t really needed if you can read a map or if you just need a map, like:
                • street view (nice to have and has made Geoguessr possible (now pay-to-play in part thanks to Google’s closed-source APIs), but itself updated by volunteers who have to resort to things like holding signs with their company names to get credit and only updated every few years or so on average),
                • opening times (whether it’s correct information aside, you can just look that up otherwise and get it from the horse’s mouth), or
                • searching for something like cafés within a given radius (when’s the last time you went to eat out and thought, “any café will do, but I’m slightly pickier than to warrant just walking further up the road to find somewhere, and I can’t be arsed just looking at the local area on the map and picking out cafés”? And are those cafés even open when Google Maps says they’re open? Not necessarily!).
              • I’m sure something else I can’t think of at the moment. You can see I’ve been asked this a fair few times.
        • calcopiritus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 day ago

          Some people would not select google though. And google can’t afford people knowing that there’s competitors to Google! So better fuck everyone over by just disabling the integration.

        • themurphy@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 day ago

          True. Google is using a monopoly and forcing users to use Google Maps on their platform.

          There’s no competition, and everyone is worse of. It’s a long term good change by the EU.

        • callouscomic@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 day ago

          Most browsers allow choice of search provider. If you choose Google, you’d get this, if you choose a different search engine, you’d get a different experience. People already had that choice.