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

Google no longer providing original URL in AMP for image search results

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 566 posts

Re: Google no longer providing original URL in AMP for image search results

#151

Post by alesua93 »

chrischattin wrote: post #37

I switched all my default search to DuckDuckGo a few months ago because of stuff like this. No regrets here. If you haven't tried it recently, give it a shot. It's gotten tons better in the past few years. Once you get used to it, it's as good as Google search.

I've been using DDG as my default search engine for more or less a year now, and tbh I find myself using the !g bang way more often than I'd like. Basically anytime I'm searching for something dev related or anything that's broad enough that without my personal user info it would be hard to return the results I'm looking for. Which is kind of the crux of the issue I believe. For everything that's wrong with Google as a company in terms of privacy-related issues, the truth , at least for me, is that many times (not all) it ends up being... quite convenient I guess.

YMMV though, maybe I need to step up my searching game to obtain better results using DDG. That's definitely something I should work on.

Re: Google no longer providing original URL in AMP for image search results

#152

Post by paddez »

rantwasp wrote: post #140
kelvin0 wrote: post #130

Non-web coder here. I searched 'google amp', and I can't really understand what it's supposed to do? Can anyone explain what problem AMP is supposed solve, or what features it brings to the table?

https://amp.dev It's supposedly a component framework. supposedly you can build web stuff faster and easier using it. In reality it looks like Google is using it a Trojan horse

It's direction is no-longer owned by Google, but by the OpenJS Foundation, right?

Re: Google no longer providing original URL in AMP for image search results

#153

Post by mcv »

catalogia wrote: post #79
omnifischer wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

examples? Every site in Germany is 10 X bigger in normal browsing compared to AMP.

AMP might be faster if you browse the net with javascript enabled by default and with no content blockers enabled. But if you don't do those things, AMP is a clear net-negative.

Yeah, but Google doesn't want you to do that. You're here to watch ads, peon.

Re: Google no longer providing original URL in AMP for image search results

#154

Post by AlexandrB »

tgv wrote: post #108
wolco wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not everyone joined the https party. The additional overhead on sites isn't justified for sites you don't even log into.

Via http you expose the GET headers, i.e. everyone can see the urls you're browsing, even if you don't login to pornhub.

This gets trotted out a lot, but who is "everyone"? At worst it's a bunch of random people in the cafe whose WiFi you're using - but these people don't have the resources to track your activity once you leave the cafe. Otherwise it's just the same rogue's gallery of large corporations interested in adtech/surveillance money: ISPs, device makers, other online service providers. The thing is, none of them have the reach, data collection, and analytics capability of Google. And Google almost certainly gets all this information too, whether you use HTTPS or not (see reCaptcha, Google Analytics).

To me, this rationale looks an awful lot like a moat to stifle Google's competition. If collecting "the urls you're browsing" is wrong, why is it ok for Google to do it? And if it's not wrong, why is it somehow better that only Google gets to do it?

Re: Google no longer providing original URL in AMP for image search results

#155

Post by mattwad »

snazz wrote: post #104
iagovar wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, but then you have another vendor lock in, not to mention that apple products are expensive for me, I don't have an US salary.

I just had a discussion with someone on Lobsters about the actual cost of a lower-end iPhone versus a similarly-priced Android phone and the iPhone appeared cheaper: > The Pixel 4 is $799 and the Pixel 3a is $399 (although it may be on sale right now depending on your region). The iPhone 11 is $699 and the iPhone SE (2nd generation) is $399. Both provide additional discounts if you trade in your current phone (and si…

Pixel and Samsung were intended to compete with iPhone, so the cost is going to be somewhat similar. Also, these go on huge sales every year, whereas iPhone never does. If you buy these at cost, you're doing it wrong. If you're really concerned about cost, you get a new Motorola for about $200, and there's even cheaper options out there.

Re: Google no longer providing original URL in AMP for image search results

#156

Post by arbitrage »

u801e wrote: post #123
ilikehurdles wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The URL bar is helpful to fighting phishing attacks. It's one of the things everyone at my company, including the non-technical people, is askedt to check before entering information. Also techie and non-techie people have been using the same browsers for how many decades now? Aren't the majority of people in many countries on the internet? It seems like the average non-techie users succeeded in figuring things out s…

> The URL bar is helpful to fighting phishing attacks It would have been nice if client side TLS certificates were more popular. Then your browser could warn you that you're not using your client cert when connecting to a certain website and not allow you to complete the connection. That would be a better solution as opposed to relying on users to manually check the URL.

while we're wishing for things that just won't ever happen, can I have a pony?

Re: Google no longer providing original URL in AMP for image search results

#157

Post by snazz »

iagovar wrote: post #124
snazz wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just had a discussion with someone on Lobsters about the actual cost of a lower-end iPhone versus a similarly-priced Android phone and the iPhone appeared cheaper: > The Pixel 4 is $799 and the Pixel 3a is $399 (although it may be on sale right now depending on your region). The iPhone 11 is $699 and the iPhone SE (2nd generation) is $399. Both provide additional discounts if you trade in your current phone (and si…

Maybe, but I don't spend money on high end phones, I don't really see the point if you are not going to play games. I have an LG G4 and honestly, don't really need more.

Are you running LineageOS on it? How are you getting security patches? I wouldn't be comfortable having the device with my most sensitive information on it running an out-of-date operating system, but maybe that's just me.

Re: Google no longer providing original URL in AMP for image search results

#158

Post by pirocks »

viraptor wrote: post #134
zo1 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After they took away peoples' ability to MITM their own stuff by forcing HTTPS everywhere under the guise of privacy.

If you want to mitm yourself, nobody takes it away from you. Create your own CA, add it to the trusted list, setup your proxy with the keys, and mitm all you want. You do get the benefit of https even on static sites though. Do you want every network you join to be able to inject any JS they want into pages you're viewing? Https solves that.

This is significantly harder on android which is probably what OP was referring to.

Re: Google no longer providing original URL in AMP for image search results

#159

Post by arbitrage »

wolco wrote: post #89
zo1 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After they took away peoples' ability to MITM their own stuff by forcing HTTPS everywhere under the guise of privacy.

Not everyone joined the https party. The additional overhead on sites isn't justified for sites you don't even log into.

The "additional overhead" argument against SSL hasn't held water for well over ten years, now.

Re: Google no longer providing original URL in AMP for image search results

#160

Post by snazz »

runawaybottle wrote: post #111
snazz wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm still against AMP on a conceptual ground, but it is so much faster and more reliable than traditional page loading on my phone. Pages can't have megabytes of JavaScript and huge images. It's served by Google's fast CDN instead of some far-away server.

Can you give us details on what phone you are using?

It's an iPhone 8. Safari with content blockers.
Post reply on HN