It seems pretty stupid. Instead of expanding the SEO policy bureaucracy to address a situation where a spammer hijacks the back button, the browser should have been designed in the first place to never allow that hijacking to happen. Second best approach is modify it now. While they're at it, they should also make it impossible to hijack the mode one.... oh yes, Google itself does that.

On one side, we have Apple giving us great APIs but telling us how to use them. On the other, we have W3C being extremely conservative with what they expose, exactly because of things like this.

zero cookie banners

zero surveys popping up

zero ads to be closed

Just the text of the page with no other distractions in the way.

But thinking of this at this moment, this could be a good use for a locally ran LLM, to get rid of all this crap dynamically. I wonder why Firefox didn't use this as a usecase when they bolted AI on top of Firefox. Maybe it is time for me to check what api FF has for this

Clicking the dismiss button on the cookie banner is not a reason to push a state that will show the user a screen full of ads when they try to leave. (Mentioning the cookie banner because AFAIK Chrome requires a "user gesture" before pushState works normally, https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/T8d4_...)

These sites likely pushState on consent actions so it appears like any user interaction.

We weren't really able to figure out any technical solution beyond this. It would rely on some sort of classification of clicks as leading to "real" same-document navigations or not.

This can be done reasonably well as long as you're in a cooperative relationship with the website. For example, if you're trying to classify whether a click should emit single-page navigation performance entries for web performance measurement. (See [2].) In such a case, if the browser can get to (say) 99% accuracy by default with good heuristics and provide site owners with guidance on how to annotate or tweak their code for the remaining 1%, you're in good shape.

But if you're in an adversarial relationship with the website, i.e. it's some malicious spammer trying to hijack the back button, then the malicious site will just always go down the 1% path that slips through the browser's heuristics. And you can try playing whack-a-mole with certain code patterns, but it just never ends, and isn't a great use of engineering resources, and is likely to start degrading the experience of well-behaved sites by accident.

So, policy-based solutions make sense to me here.

[1]: "real history stack": by this I mean the user-visible one that is traversed by the browser's back button UI. This is distinct from the programmer-visible one in `navigation.entries()`, traversed by `navigation.back()` or `history.back()`. The browser's back button is explicitly allowed to skip over programmer-visible entries. https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/speculative-loading.h...

[2]: https://developer.chrome.com/docs/web-platform/soft-navigati...

Makes it impossible to browse around and long click to open on a new tab doesn’t solve the issue either.

It works perfectly on Chrome, if it was intentional they would have broken it on Chrome too.

As always you can count on Apple/Safari team to not give a shit, not try to fix it, not reach out to reddit to ask them to fix it, etc.

It's why I went to Kagi.

For instance,

- if you want to do statistics tracking (how many hits your site gets and user journeys)

- You have a widget/iframe system that needs to teardown when the SPA page is navigated away

- etc

The browser does not have a;

   globalThis.history.addEventListener('navigate')

Unfortunately this would break some libraries for SPA management that people sometimes load from CDNs (external, or under their control but not obviously & unambiguously 1st-party by hostname) instead of the main app/page location. You could argue that this is bad design IMO, and I'd agree, but it is common design so enforcing such a limit will cause enough uproar to not be worth any browser's hassle.

I do like that they follow up this warning with “We encourage site owners to thoroughly review …” - too many site/app owners moan that they don't have control over what their dependencies do as if loading someone else's code absolves them from responsibility for what it does. Making it clear from the outset that this is the site's problem, not the user's, or something that the UA is doing wrong, or the indexer is judging unfairly, is worth the extra wordage.

This is the worst idea I’ve heard all day.

Let the browser do the browsery things. Don’t make SPAs suck even more than they already do.

Basically, they are turning search into Tiktok. If you try to make a search, you'll notice that now they give precedence to AI overview, Youtube, News stories, Maps, Products, etc. Anything but content.

tl;dr: content is dead in Google search.

There's yer problem....

Google isn't interested in helping people find pages with no ads.

One conception is "take me back to the previous screen I was on", one is "take me one level up the hierarchy." They're often but not always the same.

Mac Finder is a perfect example of a program correctly implementing the two. If you're deep in some folder and then press cmd+win+l to go to ~/Downloads, cmd+up will get you to ~/, but cmd+[ will get you back to where you were before, even if this was deep in some network drive, nowhere near ~.

I feel like mobile OSes lean towards "one level up" as the default behavior, while traditional desktop OSes lean more towards tracking your exact path and letting you go back.

I've taken to opening anything in a new tab. Closing the tab is my new back button. In an idea world I shouldn't have to, of course, but we live in a world full of disks implementing dark patterns so not an ideal one. Opening in a new tab also helps me apply a “do I really care enough to give this reading time?” filter as my browsers are set to not give new tabs focus - if I've not actually looked at that tab after a little time it gets closed without me giving it any attention at all.

Specifically regarding LinkedIn and their family of dark patterns, I possibly should log in and update my status after the recent buy-out. I've not been there since updating my profile after the last change of corporate overlords ~9 years ago. Or I might just log in and close my profile entirely…

Assume the way that universal links work, is that the site main page is loaded, and some hash is supplied, indicating the page to navigate to from there. That's annoying, but perfectly valid, and may be necessary for sites that establish some kind of context baseline from their landing page.

Thanks for explaining how they do it BTW! I didn't really think about it. I just knew it was shitty.

Addition: People underestimate Google's influence. It's easy to forget they de-facto control Firefox, leaving only Apple and Google in control of the Web. Scary, but looking away won't help either. The Americans have been consistently competent with technology since the advent of the transistor right after WW2. They're reaping the benefits of that still to this day. I say that as a European.

I would argue there is a place for this in web-apps. For example I have a SaaS app and I employ this on any form pages where the user has already started to enter information in.

I have considered form persistence so in the event a user goes back to a previous page, realizes it's a mistake and goes forward again, their form state from the previous state is persisted.

But I would like to ask, what would users prefer the behavior be on a form page like this?

Pre-empting the web-mail comment: I know. I don't care.

There certainly is a satisfaction that would come from a shit site like linkedin or youtube being reduced to a gibbering mess of exceptions. Scripting is a privilege, and it's a nice one, but abuse of it shouldn't be tolerated. I really don't see a usecase for boiling it down to a binary of allowing the whole gamut of complex programmability web browsers expose, or allowing none of it. I'd rather just draw a line and say "programs that use these features are acceptable, programs that use these ones aren't".

I do like when websites use ctrl-k -- it means nothing to my plug-in so websites always get it, plus it helps with key binding discovery.

  // ==UserScript==
  // @name           Key Passthrough 2.0
  // @description    Ensure specific hotkeys reach userscripts on greedy sites. Ctrl+Shift+/ toggles aggressive mode for sites that swallow keys entirely.
  // @run-at         document-start
  // @include        *
  // @exclude        http://192.168.*
  // Always-enabled key codes: 27=Esc, 116=F5 (Refresh), 166=Browser_Back, 167=Browser_Fwd, 191=/
  // Other keycodes to consider: 8=BS, 9=Tab, 16/160/161=Shift, 17/162/163=Ctrl, 18=Alt, 37=LArrow, 39=RArrow, 46=Delete, 112=F1
  // ==/UserScript==

  (function () {
    'use strict';

    // Keys to passthrough in normal mode.
    // Esc, Ctrl, / (191) and Browser nav (166/167) are the core cases.
    // F1/F5 included if you have AHK remaps on those.
    // Esc included to prevent sites trapping it in overlays.
    const PASSTHROUGH_KEYS = new Set([27, 116, 166, 167, 191]);

    // Aggressive mode toggle hotkey: Ctrl+Shift+/
    const AGGRESSIVE_TOGGLE_CODE = 191;

    const REFIRE_FLAG = '_kp_refire';

    let aggressiveMode = sessionStorage.getItem('kp_aggressive') === '1';

    const logPrefix = '[KeyPassthrough]';

    const announce = (msg) => console.log(`${logPrefix} ${msg}`);

    if (aggressiveMode) announce('Aggressive mode ON (persisted from earlier in session)');

    // --- Normal mode ---
    // We're first in the capture chain at document-start.
    // For passthrough keys, do nothing — just let the event propagate naturally.
    // The site's listeners follow ours in the chain, so we've already won the race.

    // --- Aggressive mode ---
    // For sites that still swallow keys via stopImmediatePropagation in an
    // inline <script> that races document-start: block the site's listeners,
    // then re-dispatch a clone after the current call stack clears so our
    // userscripts get a clean second shot.

    function refire(e) {
        // Build a plain init object from the original event
        const init = {
            key:            e.key,
            code:           e.code,
            keyCode:        e.keyCode,
            which:          e.which,
            charCode:       e.charCode,
            ctrlKey:        e.ctrlKey,
            shiftKey:       e.shiftKey,
            altKey:         e.altKey,
            metaKey:        e.metaKey,
            repeat:         e.repeat,
            bubbles:        true,
            cancelable:     true,
            composed:       true,
        };
        const clone = new KeyboardEvent(e.type, init);
        clone[REFIRE_FLAG] = true;
        // After current capture/bubble cycle fully completes
        setTimeout(() => document.dispatchEvent(clone), 0);
    }

    function handleKey(e) {
        // Ignore our own re-dispatched events
        if (e[REFIRE_FLAG]) return;

        // Aggressive mode toggle: Ctrl+Shift+/
        if (e.ctrlKey && e.shiftKey && e.keyCode === AGGRESSIVE_TOGGLE_CODE) {
            aggressiveMode = !aggressiveMode;
            sessionStorage.setItem('kp_aggressive', aggressiveMode ? '1' : '0');
            announce(`Aggressive mode ${aggressiveMode ? 'ON' : 'OFF'}`);
            e.stopImmediatePropagation();
            return;
        }

        if (!PASSTHROUGH_KEYS.has(e.keyCode)) return;

        if (aggressiveMode) {
            // Block the site from seeing this key, then re-dispatch for our scripts
            e.stopImmediatePropagation();
            refire(e);
        }
        // Normal mode: do nothing, let event propagate naturally
    }
    document.addEventListener('keydown', handleKey, true);
    document.addEventListener('keyup',   handleKey, true);
  })();

That way trusted sites that used it responsibly could be given permission, but it could not be used by any random site.

But the TFA is about a related issue with a similar symptom, hijacking (or disabling) the back button in Chrome browser. This also hasn't been an issue in Firefox in recent memory (kind of shocked to learn it still was until now in Chrome). However, I did have a problem in recent years in Firefox with sites hijacking the Browser_Back keycode and/or hotkey (keycode 166 or Alt+Left Arrow) but I solved it with a small UserScript I posted elsewhere in this thread.

I rarely click the back arrow icon on the interface since I have a three-finger tap on my touchpad assigned to send the Browser_Back keycode when the active window is Firefox. Being a keycode, this can be intercepted by site JS. While sites intercepting Browser_Back (keycode 166) is rare, some video players use the arrow keys to skip forward/back and Alt+Arrow to skip more. Since Firefox uses Alt+Left Arrow as the back hotkey, this can be an issue. I fixed it with a UserScript that prevents sites from blocking certain keycodes. Note: you can also change all Firefox's hotkeys by going to "about:keyboard".