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

451–460 of 566 posts

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

#451

Post by SquareWheel »

radium3d wrote: post #430
SquareWheel wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're only half right. While Amp is designed to create small pages, what's more important is that they should be safely-embeddable. That means there's no potentially unsafe scripts or asset requests. That why Amp uses a subset of HTML as defined via WebComponents. >Google then cached entire amp versions of articles on their servers That's the Amp Cache. The cache allows vendors like Google, Microsoft, and Cloudflare…

"preloading" the entire article the way say, Google News app does for example means that without going two touches deeper it essentially negates the user ever needing to visit the site that originally authored the content removing them entirely from the process. It's not very content-creator friendly. For that matter, why use the internet if you don't trust anyone but Google, Microsoft, Cloudflare, etc? Insanity. The…

> ... it essentially negates the user ever needing to visit the site that originally authored the content removing them entirely from the process.

Yes, in this sense they are acting as a CDN. The original website is still authoring the content however.

> The internet may as well be considered broken and useless if you can't trust your web browser to at least minimally protect you from scripts automatically hijacking your computer with an "unsafe script".

It's not just about malware. I'm sure most users would not be comfortable with websites being able to track them after simply performing search results. Actually going to a website is an action with more intent behind it.

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

#452

Post by searchableguy »

joshuamorton wrote: post #275
throwaway2048 wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The page results will be a tightly restricted iframe-esque window inside of google results (This is what the Chome "Portals" proposal is about). There will be no obvious distinction between a search result and google's own website, even though the "portals" will be showing cryptographically signed content (which will almost certainly be in a super restricted AMP-esque format that denies sites much control besides wha…

> If google swaps one result for another, 95% of users wont even notice. Right so exactly the same way the search results page works today? > The page results will be a tightly restricted iframe-esque window inside of google results This is completely independent of AMP. Portals work for non-AMP content too. > which will almost certainly be in a super restricted AMP-esque format that denies sites much control besides…

Isn't that what those meta tags are for so google can quickly show scores, reviews and stuff?

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

#453

Post by ehsankia »

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…

> How does anyone think this is a good idea?

They don't.

> Just heard from the Image Search team that this is an oversight and they'll add the feature! Sorry about that and thanks for the report!

https://twitter.com/cramforce/status/1265688067706245120

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

#454

Post by lallysingh »

calcifer wrote: post #433
gregable wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chrome does enforce the matching signature. Browsers without Signed Exchange support will not likely ever get a signed exchange as they do not advertise support for it in the `Accept` request header.

I think we are talking about different things here. You, as an AMP engineer are talking about how Chrome implemented this [1], but I'm talking about how Chrome is not a user agent, because it demonstrably acts as Google's agent, not the user's. [1] Which is unverifiable, we just have to take your word for it.

Isn't chrome open source? Can't you verify it?

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

#455

Post by bencollier49 »

Jayschwa wrote: post #303
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 migrated from Gmail to Fastmail a couple years ago and I have been happy with it. Migrating existing emails from Gmail into Fastmail was easy, as was setting up forwarding from Gmail to Fastmail for all future emails. The hardest part was just updating accounts across the web to use the new email. Since I'm using a custom domain with Fastmail, I can change account emails to things like foo.com@mydomain.com or bar.n…

Likewise, it's easy and a sensible thing to do.

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

#456

Post by toupeira »

lallysingh wrote: post #454
calcifer wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we are talking about different things here. You, as an AMP engineer are talking about how Chrome implemented this [1], but I'm talking about how Chrome is not a user agent, because it demonstrably acts as Google's agent, not the user's. [1] Which is unverifiable, we just have to take your word for it.

Isn't chrome open source? Can't you verify it?

Chromium is Open Source, Google Chrome isn't.

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

#457

Post by madeofpalk »

lightswitch05 wrote: post #77
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…

I couldn't agree more that AMP is terrible. I do everything I can to avoid it. Using DuckDuckGo certainly helps, but I will still occasionally stumble on an AMP site. I've created a hosts block list to help me avoid AMP as much as possible. It currently has 3,569 unique domains (works great with a PiHole!). I'm really concerned about Chrome's 'signed exchanges' where they can fake the URL completely. I hope Firefox w…

If you're using DuckDuckGo, presumably a site that doesnt do the "AMP Cache" iFraming that Google Search does, then what are you left with, apart from a website that will almost definitely load faster than the 'original'?

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

#458

Post by madeofpalk »

monadic2 wrote: post #402
JoshTriplett wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm really concerned about Chrome's 'signed exchanges' where they can fake the URL completely. They're not faking the URL; a signed exchange contains data that can only have come from the original site. It's a secure way of handling caching/CDNs/etc, and it'll be a net improvement for security that allows sites to put less trust in third-party servers and scripts.

This is changing the semantics of fetching a URL to be agnostic how it gets resolved. That’s disturbing and downright deceitful to the end user. Fifteen years ago, if you asked me how google search would look, I would have responded “mostly the same, maybe they’ll have cool features like asking me which meaning of ‘converse’ i wanted: the shoe brand or the logical relation.” Instead, they’ve only subtracted functiona…

I don't think its deceitful - end-to-end, the site you're displaying was loaded somehow from domaina.com and it'll show domaina.com in the address bar.

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

#459

Post by madeofpalk »

glenstein wrote: post #424
gregable wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. Signed Exchanges mean the publisher signs the content using their private key. A third party can provide delivery like a CDN, but they cannot modify the content, or the signature would no longer match. The useragent (browser) enforces this. This gives the secure control of the content back to the publisher, unlike the trust model of CDNs or the AMP Cache.

>A third party can provide delivery like a CDN, but they cannot modify the content, or the signature would no longer match. To make sure I understand, does this mean that in principle a third party other than Google can deliver the AMP pages? Is google working to facilitate that AMP hosting is open to everyone and calibrating their searches point to any and all alternative AMP hosters?

When you search for a term on Google.com, should that load request HTTP assets from multiple potentially-untrusted third parties?

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

#460

Post by stevenjohns »

WhyNotHugo wrote: post #35

This is pretty much what we've been saying would happen since the day AMP was fire presented to the public. I really hope this AMP thing never becomes anything mainstream, it's an atrocious attempt at monopolizing the internet as a whole.

Lots of people were also convinced Google wouldn’t go down that route and would be dismissive of criticism.

I feel like when a company grows to a certain size, we have to drop the “assume good faith” outlook we give to small businesses and individuals and take on “assume bad faith” instead.

Post reply on HN