Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

AMP: the missing controversy

ferdychristant.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 143 posts

Re: AMP: the missing controversy

#31

Post by ocdtrekkie »

indigochill wrote: post #28
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I make this mistake too, but we need to stop calling it an open standard unless it's handed over to a neutral standards-making body. AMP's solution to the URL problem involves another Google-pushed web standard, webpackage. But the big difference is that webpackage is part of the WICG, a community group under the W3C. That's a real standard, this is not. If AMP not handed over to the W3C, I don't think we can or shou…

I'm not at all up on my tech politics, but I'm curious about your implication that the W3C is neutral. Is that something we can take for granted, given the way they went forward with EME[0]? Otherwise, though, I'm inclined to agree. [0] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/07/amid-unprecedented-con...

I'm definitely not fond of EME, but the W3C's interests go well beyond that of a single corporation. For instance, WICG, which I mentioned, lists three chairs, who are employed by Google, Mozilla, and Akamai respectively.

I don't think Mozilla was super fond of EME either, but couldn't afford to be "the web browser that can't watch Netflix".

I definitely do remain wary of these groups being forced to rubber stamp things, I do feel Google exerts way too much control even in that space, because due to their monopolies, they can just implement what they want, and sometimes the W3C has to accept it or be irrelevant.

Re: AMP: the missing controversy

#32

Post by jadedhacker »

mulmen wrote: post #3
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #2

We were discussing with the AMP project tech lead over on GitHub trying to suss out details about governance and the like, and it's even scarier than we thought when it came to AMP4Email: Gmail is implementing AMP in email "the way they want to", and AMP Project is just deciding whether or not they want to support it/publish a 'standard'. I strongly recommend this for reading: https://github.com/ampproject/amphtml/is…

I think the best thing to do is just be the kind of online citizen you want to see. It may be small but it is something you can do yourself. I will be looking for a way to move my online identity away from Google to something I control more directly. I am also going to try replacing my social media activity with email. The web is already decentralized, we just need to use it.

You're right, being the kind of citizen you want to be is undeniable a good thing, but it's also undeniably useless. It individualizes a collective problem, thereby being an ineffective solution. The only way to resist power is with collective action that substantially challenges it.

Re: AMP: the missing controversy

#33

Post by jsnell »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #25
ddmd1 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google already has your IP; it's their page. Preloading resources from it's own CDN doesn't tell them anything they don't already know. Preloading resources from someone else's domain would.

They could CDN people's non-AMP static content for this purpose though. It's not like their search engine isn't caching a lot of it already anyways.

Just how do you imagine they'd "CDN people's non-AMP content"? There's no mechanism by which they could tell the browser to load nytimes.com but to replace the URLs of random resources with different ones.

They'd need to host the actual page on Google.com. And after solving all the problems that doing this introduces, you've pretty much got AMP already.

Re: AMP: the missing controversy

#34

Post by ocdtrekkie »

jsnell wrote: post #33
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They could CDN people's non-AMP static content for this purpose though. It's not like their search engine isn't caching a lot of it already anyways.

Just how do you imagine they'd "CDN people's non-AMP content"? There's no mechanism by which they could tell the browser to load nytimes.com but to replace the URLs of random resources with different ones. They'd need to host the actual page on Google.com. And after solving all the problems that doing this introduces, you've pretty much got AMP already.

The same way they're trying to fix this problem with AMP: https://github.com/WICG/webpackage (see also: https://amphtml.wordpress.com/2018/01/09/improving-urls-for-...)

Even if you can't package up and ship all of your traditional site to Google's CDN, you could do most of the burdensome/heavy bits. But then Google doesn't get to control your website and define the way it's allowed to look, which is what AMP is really for.

Re: AMP: the missing controversy

#35

Post by pasbesoin »

mulmen wrote: post #30
pasbesoin wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just had to think a bit in the opposite direction, with respect to email. Archiving some correspondence from other contexts into it. There's a very handy tool for the archiving I'm interested in. But... under U.S. law, online email storage over X... (I forget the exact count, something over 100 days) days old, is open to examination without a warrant. Not that I've anything particular to hide. But moving my persona…

The 100 day warrantless examination is an interesting point. Are you suggesting the government doesn't have access to your correspondence on other platforms? You can at least run your own email server.

It depends on the platform, and on ongoing developments in law, regulation, and third-party cooperation (one big way U.S. governments get around their own restrictions is by soliciting (often, paid) data from third parties not bound by such restrictions).

Anyway, they may well have this data. Some other data, more likely not.

And, even where they may have -- or have access to, this data, retention periods may be significantly shorter. At least, the retention periods that aren't shrouded in secrecy in e.g. a large campus in the middle of Utah.

Not email, but more and more social/communications platforms are offering to archive your data in your Google Drive account. Now, maybe with a privately held passphrase to AES encryption, some might consider that ok. But that is not what these services are offering.

For the majority of people, "Who cares?" And there is value to keeping your life free of unnecessary friction.

But, more and more of this stuff is getting supeonaed in divorce cases, employment disputes, etc., etc.

Though, I suppose if you maintain private access to the messages, and don't share them, you are still a candidate for contempt of court.

Anyway, I'm not interested in accumulating more of my social life into a data store that, here in the U.S., has less constraints against third-party (here, meaning particularly, government) access.

Re: AMP: the missing controversy

#36

Post by mulmen »

pasbesoin wrote: post #35
mulmen wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 100 day warrantless examination is an interesting point. Are you suggesting the government doesn't have access to your correspondence on other platforms? You can at least run your own email server.

It depends on the platform, and on ongoing developments in law, regulation, and third-party cooperation (one big way U.S. governments get around their own restrictions is by soliciting (often, paid) data from third parties not bound by such restrictions). Anyway, they may well have this data. Some other data, more likely not. And, even where they may have -- or have access to, this data, retention periods may be sign…

Ok but what is the alternative for online communication?

Re: AMP: the missing controversy

#37

Post by mulmen »

jadedhacker wrote: post #32
mulmen wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the best thing to do is just be the kind of online citizen you want to see. It may be small but it is something you can do yourself. I will be looking for a way to move my online identity away from Google to something I control more directly. I am also going to try replacing my social media activity with email. The web is already decentralized, we just need to use it.

You're right, being the kind of citizen you want to be is undeniable a good thing, but it's also undeniably useless. It individualizes a collective problem, thereby being an ineffective solution. The only way to resist power is with collective action that substantially challenges it.

I disagree with your defeatist message and I consider it harmful if spread. Individual action is the foundation of our entire social system. It is not "useless" by any measure.

I don't want to use AMP in email so I'm not going to. It's just that easy.

What are you doing and what do you suggest the rest of us do? Is voting with our wallets not a thing any longer?

Re: AMP: the missing controversy

#38

Post by mulmen »

paulddraper wrote: post #12
mulmen wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The best way to improve AMP is to drag it out behind the wood shed and shoot it. People just need to get better at making mobile web pages.

I'm not saying you're wrong. But I will say I think your wood shed idea won't work. (Though I am very open to hearing more about it's implementation.)

Yeah I don't think that's realistic either but validating Google by participating in their selfish initiative isn't going to do anyone any favors.

Where you can oppose the adoption of AMP and work on improving the rest of the ecosystem so that AMP has fewer compelling applications.

Re: AMP: the missing controversy

#39

Post by hvass »

"Something only Google is capable of, because it is the only entity in the world controlling the most important information portal: search."

How is Google the only search engine? A different one is literally a click away. This just doesn't pass as an argument.

Re: AMP: the missing controversy

#40

Post by walterbell »

There's an IETF proposal for certificate-signed web content (Web Packages) which can be rendered offline. The browser address bar will no longer show the URL of the web server (e.g. Google AMP), it will show the authenticated origin of the Web Package.

2017 IETF proposal by Google: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-yasskin-webpackage-use-cas...

2018 Chrome demo at AMP event: https://youtube.com/watch?&t=9m03s&v=pr5cIRruBsc

There may be overlap in goals with W3C Web Publications, which is working to converge EPUB and Web: https://w3c.github.io/wpub/

Post reply on HN