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

181–190 of 566 posts

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

#181

Post by wolco »

zbrozek wrote: post #112
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.

I disagree. There's no reason to leak things to everyone on the planet, even if what's leaked isn't the most-damaging-to -leak-thing possible. As an example, it annoys me that the Texas Instruments site isn't encrypted, leaking my interest in parts to anybody listening.

I don't understand this point of view. You are either using a vpn or tor if you don't want the planet to leak your info to the world or you are leaking already.

If you are not then sure browsing in an internet cafe or an unsafe network will allow rogue entities to see your interest in parts.

Your browser is fingerprinting you on chrome with an id. You are being fingerprinted with your unique fonts on other browsers. If you have javascript on that opens the floodgates. Logged into facebook still? Browser extension gone rogue? Andriod OS?

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

#182

Post by dane-pgp »

tyingq wrote: post #142
TechBro8615 wrote: post #34

How does anyone think this is a good idea? It should be clear which news site I am reading when I'm reading an article. Otherwise, how do I know which bias to apply? On iOS, the title bar says "google.com" whether I'm reading an article from CNN.com or WashingtonExaminer.com. Of all the anti-competitive actions google has taken around search results, AMP is by far the worst. I hope they get smacked down for it in the…

Maybe they are trying to push their signed exchanges / "AMP real URL"[1]? Last I understood, Firefox says they won't support it, ever. Apple is less vocal about it, but doesn't appear to be working it. [1] https://webmasters.googleblog.com/2019/04/instant-loading-am...

> Firefox says they won't support it, ever.

That's a bit of an exaggeration. Mozilla's position statement on web packaging[1] says:

> As a whole, and for origin substitution in particular, until more information is available on the effect on the web ecosystem, Mozilla concludes that it would not be good for the web to deploy web packaging.

Personally I'd like to see web packaging adopted without the origin substitution capability (at least to start with), as it would still allow sites to offer web apps comprised of a fixed bundle of code (signed with an offline key), rather than potentially different code each time you visited. That would reduce some of the concerns around serving "secure" apps on the web, as long as browsers had a way of preventing the server from silently updating the web package (perhaps using short-lived unique subdomains/certs).

[1] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ha00dSGKmjoEh2mRiG8FIA5s...

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

#183

Post by Aachen »

ralmidani wrote: post #127

I got a new computer (Mac Mini) last week and, as the ritual usually goes, I opened Safari and was about to type “google.com/chrome”, then stopped myself and went to “getfirefox.com” instead. It’s been a while since I gave FF a serious look, and so far I haven’t felt like I’m missing anything. Next up, I need to change my default search engine to DDG. What’s a good privacy-oriented, web-based email service? I’ve hear…

You probably get an email address with your ISP as well. The downside is switching ISPs when you use their domain, but if you're happy with them and don't plan on switching, it might be an option.

At work we use Runbox (Norwegian if I'm not mistaken), works well and iirc the pricing is affordable also for individuals.

A new ISP in the Netherlands, set up in response to XS4ALL being killed by the parent company, offers email hosting with a custom domain for 50 euros a year (domain included I think). I personally have high expectations there. For more context on what XS4ALL did and stood for aside from privacy, see https://hn.algolia.com/?q=XS4ALL

Self hosting is also pretty easy if you don't mind getting your hands dirty for an evening or two to set it up. (For me it has been hands-off most of the time, aside from upgrading to new hardware every few years.)

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

#184

Post by ravenstine »

thebouv wrote: post #169

I'd really love to hear the perspective from engineers working on this inside of Google. How do they perceive the work that they're doing? Do they see the harm it causes, or do they only believe in the promise of the good it gives?

It's been a while since I read the AMP project website, but my impression was that it was written by people who drank a lot of the Kool-Aid. There's probably a lot of people working there who believe that AMP is good, but we can't discount the compliance created by the exorbitant pay and prestige of working at Google.

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

#185

Post by ravenstine »

ralmidani wrote: post #127

I got a new computer (Mac Mini) last week and, as the ritual usually goes, I opened Safari and was about to type “google.com/chrome”, then stopped myself and went to “getfirefox.com” instead. It’s been a while since I gave FF a serious look, and so far I haven’t felt like I’m missing anything. Next up, I need to change my default search engine to DDG. What’s a good privacy-oriented, web-based email service? I’ve hear…

I've been happily using Protonmail for the past 2 years. It's not going to have all the bells and whistles of Gmail, but I'm a minimalist so it's perfect for me.

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

#186

Post by thdrdt »

mthoms wrote: post #180
thdrdt wrote: post #173

Is AMP popular in the US only? (I am from the Netherlands) As far as I know I have never seen an AMP website. I use DDG as search engine but !g a lot, so I assume I should have stumbled upon an AMP site at least once. But maybe it is also browser related? When I go to amp.cnn.com I get redirected to editions.cnn.com in Firefox.

AMP is "Accelerated Mobile Pages". Are you on mobile?

Yes I am.

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

#187

Post by WrtCdEvrydy »

coldpie wrote: post #88
ojosilva wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OMG! Why would Mozilla kill extensions on mobile (android)? It would make mobile unusable for me. In fact that's the reason I barely browse the internet on my iPad: Firefox never had add ons on iOS due to Apple restrictions. I hope that's just FUD!

They're pushing out the upgrade to everyone soon, and it only supports certain, whitelisted extensions. https://blog.mozilla.org/firefox/firefox-android-new-feature...

Sideload the last working version with full extension support?

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

#188

Post by drawkbox »

anoraca wrote: post #143

This is so unfriendly to users. I don't understand the push to obscure URLs. They are sometimes hiding the URLs in search results also which is infuriating. One more reason to use DuckDuckGo.

Another thing that is extremely annoying is the hiding of urls in Chrome. Hiding the protocol and the rest of the url besides the domain. When you go to click up in the url/address bar to change a section of the site the protocol re-appears and messes you up.

Or when you click in on some mobile and the whole url disappears and you just wanted to change part of the url.

Yes Google there are still people that want hackable urls, I remember when that was something they pushed, clean urls that make sense so you can type in where you are going.

AMP might be the thing that actually brings anti-trust, so not needed and very anti-competitive using their monopoly position to stifle competition and innovation rather than extend innovation and compete on product. Google should reward fast sites not band-aid it with an anti-competitive AMP. AMP also creates lots more work for content companies and it is only useful for Google. Essentially content companies are doing Google's work for them.

McKinsey and the management consultants have taken over large swaths of Google with stuff like this and AMP.

Here's hoping some pirate product people/engineers put up a flag and start returning to product over management metrics.

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

#189

Post by pgt »

Google seems to be slowly self-immolating.

I've stopped using Google Chrome and Google Search. The only time I use Google Search now is when DuckDuckGo doesn't quite deliver and then I do so using an incognito window. Next step will be to ditch Gmail, and then Google Cloud & Firebase.

This might sound silly coming from a lone developer in South Africa, but my experience is that we live in the future, and developers with a mass intuition is rarely wrong. If the trend continues, then in 10 years' time this will be the popular view.

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

#190

Post by wolco »

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.

Everyone on your private network basically.

Pornhub should offer https if it doesn't already. A good example of a site where this would be a feature. Local recipe blog.. maybe

Btw.. Pornhub has it's own google version of ad tracking they sell/share espically when you login.

Post reply on HN