81–90 of 340 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
AMP is like Brussels Sprouts. If it's forced on you when you are young, you will grow up hating it.
Brussels sprouts are good for you. AMP is more like medical experiments performed on you during an alien abduction.
I'm not entirely a fan of this, though it could have uses in other places;
Debian for example, could use this to enable HTTPS-like security without requiring mirrors to upgrade their security to the late 2000's.
This sounds terrible. Does it mean that browsers will begin lying to users and say that the users are visiting the website's server when they are really visiting a restricted version of the website that is hosted in Google's cache? I don't want my content restricted or hosted in Google's cache. AMP doesn't load in a privacy sensitive way. It's on Google's servers and it takes many seconds to load if you have JavaScri…
The browser displays the URL from the origin that digitally signed the unmodified content. A browser already doesn't show you what server delivered the content. That would be your wifi AP, cell phone tower, or ISP node. The internet has already long established that we can trust content without trusting intermediaries. There are two elements that are important: integrity and privacy. The content integrity is protecte…
A cell phone tower or ISP node is ideally just infrastructure, "plumbing". Google seems to be trying to advance their strategic position in that direction. Rather than just being one search engine among several, they are trying to become part of the infrastructure. This could prevent future privacy solutions (and even prevent competitions between search engines).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No it isn't. It's designed to make the user experience better on sites that frequently host Google ads (and also often contain a ton of bloat, 3rd party js, poorly constructed DOMs, awful CSS, etc). The only way Google could proactively "solve" this problem was by creating a "standard", and then also offering to absorb end user traffic for sites that adopted the standard. FWIW, AMP is an open standard not solely owne…
Why is that the only way? Seems like they could easily have achieved the same result by significantly penalizing sites based on load time and number of external requests.
I've yet to see a Google engineer, executive, or "fanboy" address this question adequately.
This thread will be no exception. Queue the crickets.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The browser displays the URL from the origin that digitally signed the unmodified content. A browser already doesn't show you what server delivered the content. That would be your wifi AP, cell phone tower, or ISP node. The internet has already long established that we can trust content without trusting intermediaries. There are two elements that are important: integrity and privacy. The content integrity is protecte…
AMP allows Google to see exactly how you interact with every page on the internet. Just from the text of the pages you visit they can build a profile around you. What your interests are, how much of an article you're likely to finish, whether you're the type of person to highlight text as you read, etc. Unless you live on an island with a poor satellite connection AMP is useless as anything more than a corporate user…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Users like pages that load quickly, which amp is not a requirement for. Amp is designed to tighten googles grip on the web, nothing more.
as long as google is using their grip on the web to drag crappy websites kicking and screaming into having acceptable load times, i'm okay with it. yeah, there's a few sites out there that are faster than amp. but most of them are not, and before amp the trend was certainly not to make anything lighter or faster.
I'm frankly shocked that people can't see this land grab for what it is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What happens if other browsers don't implement it? It seems like they'll just show CloudFlare or Google's domains, instead of the signing domain?
The behavior for browsers without support is to show the google.com/amp URL as before, along with a small html-based bar with additional information about the original domain and share intents.
Yeah, I didn't think so.
The headline is an outright lie: these AMP pages are loaded from Google and not your domain. The new feature is that Google's browser displays your domain, obscuring the fact that Google is doing the serving. The change is what is displayed, not the server.
What Google actually means here is "We make AMP pages _appear_ to come from your own domain".
That's something entirely different.
This whole thing is just more doublespeak.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That has never been different. Cloudflare & co are reverse proxies, for all intents and purposes from a user agent view, they are where the content is coming from. They are the ones pointed to in DNS, and they have valid SSL certs.
And how is this all that much different? In fact I would say it's more secure. DNS can be spoofed pretty easily. This is a cryptographically signed package. If anything, I'd have more faith in this changing my URL than a proxy via DNS. Just because Google invented it doesn't make it bad.
It changes the meaning of the address bar from "this is who I'm talking to" to "this is who (at some point in time) signed this content".
The headline is an outright lie: these AMP pages are loaded from Google and not your domain. The new feature is that Google's browser displays your domain, obscuring the fact that Google is doing the serving. The change is what is displayed, not the server.
Indeed. If a web page is being served or loaded "from your own domain" that implies something very specific. What Google actually means here is "We make AMP pages _appear_ to come from your own domain". That's something entirely different. This whole thing is just more doublespeak.
When I had a website with embed videos from other sites, I had user contacting me because the other sites had some problems. They couldn't tell the difference between megavideo/youtube/dailymotion content and my site, so they came to me and blamed me.
So what this means is that not only Google bullies you into putting your traffic under their control, but now, any problem on their part will be blamed on you by the user.