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

Client-side content encryption

blog.amp.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 66 posts

Re: Client-side content encryption

#41

Post by diggan »

p4bl0 wrote: post #18

From the title I thought it would be something along the lines of an NaCl implementation in JavaScript. It's actually a software that helps breaking the web for its users. Basically it allows paywalled websites to send users their inaccessible data even of they won't be able to read it. The title should be "DRM for web page that eat up your data plan even if you can't access the content".

I agree in general that AMP is user and web hostile, but this move doesn't seem to enable something that was impossible before. The drawbacks around this is the same as before, heavy reliance on AMP and Google for something trivial to implement yourself.

Websites could have done this before as well, and many in fact already do. It's generally established pattern in webdev if you need to be able to unlock content in a fast manner, without having to request additional content from a backend. Notably, many P2P networks works the same way regarding private-but-still-distributed content as well.

Re: Client-side content encryption

#42

Post by WhyNotHugo »

fastball wrote: post #30
WhyNotHugo wrote: post #16

Wow, this is just terrible. Sites using this will now be indexed by google, but not by any other search engine, since it's encrypted with a key only google [and subscribers] can read. I really hope AMP never gets any large scale adoption by consumers.

Is it? Now at least Google can index it and it's faster. The solution most savvy publishers were using before was to not send the content at all to the client, which means that search engines were not able to index it at all. As someone who is actually subbed to a few paywalled sites, this solution sounds great to me. I mean, we're talking about paywalled content here – ideals of an Open Web don't really apply.

What worries me is that, for consumers of these paywalled websites, google is not the only search option to search content in them, but not any other search engine.

The monopolisation here is a very scary trend.

Re: Client-side content encryption

#43

Post by WhyNotHugo »

diggan wrote: post #19
WhyNotHugo wrote: post #16

Wow, this is just terrible. Sites using this will now be indexed by google, but not by any other search engine, since it's encrypted with a key only google [and subscribers] can read. I really hope AMP never gets any large scale adoption by consumers.

> I really hope AMP never gets any large scale adoption by consumers. Sad part is that with Google's marketshare on smartphone (StatCounter shows 77% of mobile OS is android) and web (again, StatCounter: 63% on Google Chrome) they don't need consumers to adopt it. They just make to need any alternatives (like not using AMP) be more of a hassle and normal users will just use it, not considering the consequences.

I though that AMP was something that the Google-search-app used. Does Google Chrome implement AMP too?

(I use Firefox and occasionally Safari on mobile, so I've no idea here).

Re: Client-side content encryption

#44

Post by detaro »

fastball wrote: post #31
hlandau wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember in the early days of Google, it was a big no-no for sites to serve different content to Google than to actual users. Sites caught doing this would be banned from Google, so SEO advice quickly became widespread: don't do this, it will hurt you. But results like this seem to be commonplace now, with Google doing nothing about it. This article seems to be overt confirmation that Google no longer has an issue…

But... that actually doesn't apply here? In fact, it's the exact opposite of what you are saying. Google isn't encouraging anyone to deliver different results to Google. It is providing a solution that serves the same content to all users (and search engines). That is exactly the thing you said they were espousing previously. Previously, the actually worthwhile solution to paywalling was to not load the content at al…

And before, showing different content to Google than to a random web user was bad.

Re: Client-side content encryption

#45

Post by diggan »

WhyNotHugo wrote: post #43
diggan wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I really hope AMP never gets any large scale adoption by consumers. Sad part is that with Google's marketshare on smartphone (StatCounter shows 77% of mobile OS is android) and web (again, StatCounter: 63% on Google Chrome) they don't need consumers to adopt it. They just make to need any alternatives (like not using AMP) be more of a hassle and normal users will just use it, not considering the consequences.

I though that AMP was something that the Google-search-app used. Does Google Chrome implement AMP too? (I use Firefox and occasionally Safari on mobile, so I've no idea here).

I think it's Google Search (website, google.com) that shows AMP links more prominently if your user agent is Google Chrome (at least on Android, unsure on desktop), but I'm also not 100% confident, as I'm not using Chrome on either my smartphone nor computer.

Re: Client-side content encryption

#46

Post by abraham »

WhyNotHugo wrote: post #43
diggan wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I really hope AMP never gets any large scale adoption by consumers. Sad part is that with Google's marketshare on smartphone (StatCounter shows 77% of mobile OS is android) and web (again, StatCounter: 63% on Google Chrome) they don't need consumers to adopt it. They just make to need any alternatives (like not using AMP) be more of a hassle and normal users will just use it, not considering the consequences.

I though that AMP was something that the Google-search-app used. Does Google Chrome implement AMP too? (I use Firefox and occasionally Safari on mobile, so I've no idea here).

AMP is a web UI framework. Any fairly modem browser can display it without having to implement anything special.

Re: Client-side content encryption

#47

Post by diggan »

abraham wrote: post #46
WhyNotHugo wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I though that AMP was something that the Google-search-app used. Does Google Chrome implement AMP too? (I use Firefox and occasionally Safari on mobile, so I've no idea here).

AMP is a web UI framework. Any fairly modem browser can display it without having to implement anything special.

The UI Framework is one part of AMP. I don't think most people who resist AMP is resisting some web components.

AMP is however not just that, it's also the AMP Caches, which are currently gatekept by Google and CloudFlare with little information published around how you run your own. There is just some guidelines, but no information outside of that. This is the part that many are feeling is giving Google too much control and influence over the web, as they control large swaths of the web and are now trying to find ways of making sure people don't leave their controlled parts.

Re: Client-side content encryption

#49

Post by xnyan »

detaro wrote: post #44
fastball wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But... that actually doesn't apply here? In fact, it's the exact opposite of what you are saying. Google isn't encouraging anyone to deliver different results to Google. It is providing a solution that serves the same content to all users (and search engines). That is exactly the thing you said they were espousing previously. Previously, the actually worthwhile solution to paywalling was to not load the content at al…

And before, showing different content to Google than to a random web user was bad.

Repeating the same thing you just said in response to an argument is not an argument.

Encryption is not changing content, in fact it's the only way to prove that the content was not changed from the version google indexed vs what your are seeing.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but google has always indexed paywalled sites, in other words there has never been a guarantee you have rights to view what google indexed. The only sin is to say "I told google I have A" but really you have B.

It seems like what you are arguing is that google should not index paywalled sites. This is a legitimate desire of course, but has never been reality.

Re: Client-side content encryption

#50

Post by [deleted] »

xnyan wrote: post #49
detaro wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And before, showing different content to Google than to a random web user was bad.

Repeating the same thing you just said in response to an argument is not an argument. Encryption is not changing content, in fact it's the only way to prove that the content was not changed from the version google indexed vs what your are seeing. Please correct me if I am wrong, but google has always indexed paywalled sites, in other words there has never been a guarantee you have rights to view what google indexed.…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN