491–500 of 566 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
But it’s not loaded from their servers when I request it. So it shouldn’t show as such in the address bar. It blows my mind that anyone thinks that’s an acceptable idea.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But it’s not loaded from their servers when I request it. So it shouldn’t show as such in the address bar. It blows my mind that anyone thinks that’s an acceptable idea.
If a site is cached locally, it isn’t loaded from ‘their’ servers when you request it. Or maybe it’ll come from a CDN rather than origin. What’s shown in the URL bar has long been divorced from the HTTP request(s) that are made. > It blows my mind that anyone thinks that’s an acceptable idea It blows your mind that different people have difference opinions and values than you?
Also, a provider uses a CDN at their discretion. Giving them the ability to invalidate or update cached records at times of their choosing. Or remove the CDN entirely if they choose to.
This is Google using their weight to be anti-competitive and fall further down the anti-trust rabbit hole.
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, as near as I can tell signed exchanges are essentially a caching proxy. With integrity checks, so that you don't have to trust the proxy all that much and its agency is much reduced. I'm reminded of apt. The calculation appears to be that given the chance, some website controllers will choose to trade confidentiality of public pages for better load times. In business terms, this seems a pretty straightfoward wi…
The publishers are not mentioning to the visitor they are adding one more third party looking at your data; one that maintains an ad exchange and will be an intermediary on every resource request. A publisher is free to switch to AMP, but choice needs to be given to the user to agree or leave the site the same way it happens with cookies. I wouldn’t opt in and now I cannot block Google tracking at the DNS level thank…
How do signed exchanges break blocking Google tracking at the DNS level? You already need to have google.com unblocked in order to get a results page that serves an exchange from Google.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> How does anyone think this is a good idea? A while back on one of the AMP discussions here, someone from Google weighed in. They said the data was clear: users not only accept it, they love AMP. I asked how they knew that, because if it was, say, just tracking how many people tried the 2-3 tap process to get to the original URL compared to how many people just engaged whatever you showed them, then the data might b…
> users not only accept it, they love AMP. As a user, I will absolutely say I love AMP. AMP pages load incredibly fast with much less bullshit. The real problem is that AMP isn't necessary. Google created AMP and is encouraging (nearly forcing it) it in a very hamfisted way because web developers couldn't figure out how to make responsive, fast-loading web pages without a huge company like Google spelling it out for…
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Replace !g with !s to get Startpage results, which is basically proxied Google results. Although I would advise just not relying on Google at all. The perception is that it's better, but in recent years I've found Google results to be total trash.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But it’s not loaded from their servers when I request it. So it shouldn’t show as such in the address bar. It blows my mind that anyone thinks that’s an acceptable idea.
The snippet isn't loaded from their servers when you request it either. Do you think that's a bad idea as well?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Chromium is Open Source, Google Chrome isn't.
The last time I checked, the only closed source parts were some profile sync keys and some media codecs.