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

51–60 of 143 posts

Re: AMP: the missing controversy

#51

Post by tankenmate »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #45
tankenmate wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually I did suggest something to stop it; return a 501 for any email that contains an application/amp+html part (even if it has other MIME parts). Doing this means the sender will have to change their behaviour not the receiver.

This is really the only way to reject AMP4Email: Refuse to allow it, so that companies wanting to reach their customers can't implement it. However, it's unlikely large mail providers would choose to do this, I can't imagine Microsoft or Yahoo taking such a stand. My own provider FastMail, has said they of course, can't promise they won't support AMP4Email since compatibility is a major goal of theirs, and I can't fa…

If you run Amavis you can add a MIME type to the $banned_filename_re in a conf file (on debian based derivatives you'll normally find that in /etc/amavis/conf.d/20-debian_defaults).

  qr'^application/amp+html$'i,
is what I use.

If you want to put it in a separate file (such as a local config file) then you can just

  push(@$banned_filename_re,qr'^application/amp+html$'i);

Re: AMP: the missing controversy

#52

Post by tankenmate »

megous wrote: post #48
tankenmate wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually I did suggest something to stop it; return a 501 for any email that contains an application/amp+html part (even if it has other MIME parts). Doing this means the sender will have to change their behaviour not the receiver.

Me too, but ultimately this will mean not using services that decide to implement AMP. Most services will just see one or two weird customers creating issues for them. Also, unless you complain, they'd have to check their server logs, to even notice the deliverability issues. You can just as well receive the e-mail and just complain if it's AMP only, or they don't pay attention to the plaintext part, causing issues f…

A 501 return will cause an email bounce, so the sender will know that it has been refused. If you for example use "501 5.6.1 AMP format email messages not supported, please use a mail system that doesn't use AMP" then the sender will get that as the reason the mail was not sent.

Re: AMP: the missing controversy

#53

Post by PuffinBlue »

robin_reala wrote: post #20
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.

I closed my G Suite account today because of Google’s announcement of AMP for Email. Luckily I didn’t have a huge Google presence in the first place beyond email which is easily IMAPed over to another server. Takeout allowed me to extract the rest: my docs as ODF, YouTube subs as RSS and contacts as ICS. If anyone’s interested I wrote up my investigation into potential replacement mail services: http://www.robinwhitt…

Be sure to look at Zoho.eu too. I think it means all your criteria.

They have a dedicated EU service now. I use them and RunBox.

Re: AMP: the missing controversy

#54

Post by dragonwriter »

tankenmate wrote: post #42
mcguire wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Am I reading the article right: the browser preloads resources from amp pages from the search page? That's going to be hard to fix in an HTMLLite sorry of way.

HTTP/2 servers can preload (if they choose).

Doesn't that require same origin, and thus AMP-style central caching?

Re: AMP: the missing controversy

#55

Post by alsetmusic »

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…

> Unfortunately, there are lots of people talking about how bad AMP is, and why, but nobody yet has suggested how we do anything to stop it.

I don’t follow amp links. Then again, I’m satisfied not signing up for twitter, or even loading their site as an outsider to get context when people link to tweets. I also killed my fb account about six months after registering (seven years ago). I clearly accept trade offs that don’t appeal to some.

Others have mentioned switching to ddg to withdraw support from google. I will probably test the waters with that in the future. It’s not as though we are held hostage in the fashion that many are beholden to ISPs.

Re: AMP: the missing controversy

#56

Post by ec109685 »

jsnell wrote: post #24

> If Google would have a genuine interest in speeding up the whole web on mobile, it could simply preload resources of non-AMP pages as well. ... but they've been doing exactly that for ages. Originally with link rel=prefetch, and later with ever more elaborate schemes which I think culminated with this: https://plus.google.com/+IlyaGrigorik/posts/ahSpGgohSDo But prefetching based on giving hints to the browser has a…

Yes, exactly. They (Google, others) cannot instantly load arbitrary websites because those sites would have access to the google.com domain in an unsafe manner. That is why AMP is “different” than other HTML. It is a safe way to allow Google, Twitter, Bing, Yahoo Japan and others to cache pages and preload/prerender them in the background before the user clicks.

Re: AMP: the missing controversy

#57

Post by hardly_a_mirage »

IlPeach wrote: post #47
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 don't even think AMP is the problem. It feels more like an symptom. So the question really goes as: what's the actual problem? To keep it very short, it really does feel like to be around how the ad revenue works on the web. But maybe I'm just mistaken and I'm missing some pieces of the puzzle.

I don't think there's a problem. From what I gather, websites simply adopt AMP for the preferential treatment Google gives AMP pages. It's an SEO-hack.

Re: AMP: the missing controversy

#58

Post by Avshalom »

mulmen wrote: post #37
jadedhacker wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

And how productive do you think "voting with our wallets" can be for a product we don't pay for from a company with more money than all of us combined?

Re: AMP: the missing controversy

#59

Post by ocdtrekkie »

Avshalom wrote: post #58
mulmen wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

And how productive do you think "voting with our wallets" can be for a product we don't pay for from a company with more money than all of us combined?

That's the problem with Google being the default search for almost all browsers and almost all phones: The entire tech industry could unite against Google, and Google still has literally billions of users who don't know better.

Re: AMP: the missing controversy

#60

Post by hdra »

Only thing I can't figure out is why is anyone buying into it in the first place?

Has the publishers not learned anything from Facebook taking their content and readers hostage? Sure, it gives you traffic boost in the beginning, but sooner or later it will force you to play by their rules and generate content for them.

Post reply on HN