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

281–290 of 566 posts

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

#281

Post by joshuamorton »

rgrs wrote: post #272
joshuamorton wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll bite: how does signed exchanges provide control to Google?

Does it behave different in different countries? Will Google allow for example, Taiwan content in mainland China? Is it like VPN/Proxy or has more knobs?

> Will Google allow for example, Taiwan content in mainland China?

Google doesn't run in mainland china, so this is a bit of a strange question. But let's assume that Google did. How would AMP or signed exchanges change the accessibility of Taiwan related content on Google in mainland china? Are you saying that the current Google results page would show Taiwan related content, but signed exchanges wouldn't, or what?

> Is it like VPN/Proxy or has more knobs?

Neither. It's literally a way to say "a site had this html, css, and js, and cryptographically signed the blob so that we can re-host it and you can be certain that the person re-hosting hasn't modified it in any way."

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

#282

Post by olivierduval »

Interestingly : could this lead to Google violating copyright laws ?

As long as Google is "only" a search engine, referencing other websites, it can get away with copyright laws by stating that he's not infringing, only showing infringing website...

But if Google serve the image by itself, with its own domain, doesn't it make him responsible for its own copyright infringement ? Maybe that we be a way to kill the behemoth... or at least this stupid "feature"...

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

#283

Post by ThePowerOfFuet »

jereees wrote: post #116
AlexandrB wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The worst thing I've seen recently is amp URLs for reddit threads. It's one bad thing (new reddit UI) wrapped in a worse thing (AMP), and getting back to classic reddit takes a lot of gymnastics. The stupid part is that the amp page is indistinguishable from the (new) reddit page (the AMP page comes complete with the "download our app" popup). So I don't see how it's providing any speed/experience benefit.

I can never get the Open In Reddit app button to work. I’m on iOS and have the latest version of the official reddit app. Which btw is painfully filled with ads.

You should really try Apollo.

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

#284

Post by clhodapp »

This seems like the kind of thing that will be labeled (maybe rightly, maybe falsely) as a "mistake" and fixed... It really seems like if this AMP proxy stuff is going to get forced down our throats, then viewing the original version needs to be integrated at the protocol level and exposed out through the browser UI, not the website (which would also make it possible for non-Google browsers to opt out, as an extra bonus). Otherwise, this sort of thing is just going to keep on happening.

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

#285

Post by throwaway2048 »

Kalium wrote: post #276
throwaway2048 wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AMP already heavily restricts what the original page is allowed to put inside, including things like ads, javascript and branding. You can be certain anything google implements around this proposal will have similar very tight restrictions.

That's definitely a scary thought! Can you share any details of what must be public plans to strip everything non-Google of branding? Surely there must be something out there beyond the IETF docs for the protocol, where I don't see any evil plans to Googlify everything in. If anything, it looks like a design intended to allow relaxing the restrictions imposed by AMP. Perhaps I need to read them more closely.

If you want an honest discussion try toning down the smarmy bullshit.

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

#286

Post by Kalium »

throwaway2048 wrote: post #285
Kalium wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's definitely a scary thought! Can you share any details of what must be public plans to strip everything non-Google of branding? Surely there must be something out there beyond the IETF docs for the protocol, where I don't see any evil plans to Googlify everything in. If anything, it looks like a design intended to allow relaxing the restrictions imposed by AMP. Perhaps I need to read them more closely.

If you want an honest discussion try toning down the smarmy bullshit.

I was trying to be nice. I'll stop now.

Got any material to back up your rather substantial claims? Right now you're coming across as wildly paranoid and offering absolutely nothing in support but more of the same. Someone else's personal incredulity is, IMO, not a great form of evidence.

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

#287

Post by seph-reed »

schnable wrote: post #270
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…

What's wrong with Safari?

This month?

https://gist.github.com/iansltx/18caf551baaa60b79206#gistcom...

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

#288

Post by tyingq »

joshuamorton wrote: post #252
throwaway2048 wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its deeply misleading to pretend stuff like signed exchanges and portals are purely about content distribution and security, and not control over said content being shifted to Google, and away from authors and other sites. Its a similar vein to how many of the objections to AMP were being white-washed with "its open source, if you have a problem with it why aren't you submitting a pull request??"

I'll bite: how does signed exchanges provide control to Google?

Google can choose today which site (original or AMP cache) to show in their search results. Today, as an end user, I know, via the URL, when I land on a Google AMP site.

That said, Google already has control of every AMP page because the spec REQUIRES you to load a piece of Google controlled/hosted JS onto your page. That JS can change at any time without "signed exchanges" being aware.

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

#289

Post by lightswitch05 »

Kalium wrote: post #264
throwaway2048 wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because its cover to allow them to subsume content and serve it solely from google.com, and deny the originating page any traffic or recognition, or swap it out transparently when they feel like it. This is literally already happening with the info sidebar, the reason signed exchanges matter is so they can throw up the smokescreen about how its cryptographically verified to come from the original page, so why are peo…

As I understood signed exchanges, a correct implementation makes it impossible for the intermediary to inject, alter, replace, or otherwise swap out any part of the page without failing verification. This would mean the original server gets to do all the branding and get all the recognition and integrity in transit that its controllers might wish. I've clearly missed something. Can you help me?

Yes, as you say, Integrity is preserved. However, Confidentiality is also another important aspect of Information Security. Making a 3rd party appear as a 1st party, is a privacy and confidentiality violation, which is why I do not like AMP and signed exchanges.

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

#290

Post by joshuamorton »

tyingq wrote: post #288
joshuamorton wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll bite: how does signed exchanges provide control to Google?

Google can choose today which site (original or AMP cache) to show in their search results. Today, as an end user, I know, via the URL, when I land on a Google AMP site. That said, Google already has control of every AMP page because the spec REQUIRES you to load a piece of Google controlled/hosted JS onto your page. That JS can change at any time without "signed exchanges" being aware.

> Google can choose today which site (original or AMP cache) to show in their search results. Today, as an end user, I know, via the URL, when I land on a Google AMP site.

Ok why is this an issue? Note that HN is a bad place for this kind of socratic method discussion, we'll both quickly run out of the ability to post replies. Assume I'm someone who doesn't share whatever values you share about the purity of the url bar or whatever. Why is you being unable to know whether or not the content came from Google's IP or mysite's IP relevant to anyone as long as it's the same content (which signed exchanges ensure)?

Post reply on HN