501–510 of 566 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The snippet isn't loaded from their servers when you request it either. Do you think that's a bad idea as well?
yes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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?
AMP hosting is already open to everyone, and multiple third parties other than Google deliver AMP pages.
Also how would you reconcile your comment with that of madeofpalk who appears to be treating that possibility as a hypothetical idea that hasn't happened, and which would be unpraticable due to needing to trust third parties?
Malte Ubl from Google responded via Twitter:[0] > 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! [0]: https://twitter.com/cramforce/status/1265688067706245120
Sounds like classic Google "Oops after oops": https://www.zdnet.com/article/former-mozilla-exec-google-has...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sadly, Ublock Origin is literally the only Firefox extension available on Android atm.
Not quite literal: It's recently up to 6 addons -- the others are https everywhere, privacy badger, noscript, dark reader, and search by image. Note to others: this is about the upcoming rewrite, available as Firefox Preview and Firefox Beta.
I got:
Don't f* with paste, Disable WebRTC, Dark Mode, a couple of image savers, NoScript, AdBlock Plus, Privacy Badger.
I recommend https://filterlists.com/ if you use any blockers, it's an easy way to subscribe to lists.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
yes.
Can you explain? Every time you search, do you want all of the publishers who appear on the results page to know that you were searching? Or is it that you don't want snippets to appear in the search results and just want a list of links without any evidence for why they might be good matches for your query?
>Or is it that you don't want snippets to appear in the search results and just want a list of links without any evidence for why they might be good matches for your query?
Is that how you feel about regular search results?
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.
@freeone3000, that's incorrect, in the case of Signed Exchanges. Chrome will verify the document's signature against the publisher's public certificate. This will be `nytimes.com` for example. It is not using Google's certificate for this verification, and Google does not possess the private key required to modify the content and update the signature.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You'll only ever retrieve Google AMP cache results from the Google search page Uh, I keep seeing Google AMP URLs shared on social media, emails, etc etc. Which is quite annoying :(
The AMP team doesn't prefer these URLs shared either: If you click the browser share icon, or trigger the browser native share intent, the origin URL will be shared, not the AMP Cache URL. Only if you explicitly copy the URL bar will the AMP Cache URL be shared. The Signed Exchange spec that AMP has offered sites for a year now allows them to have their own URLs displayed in browsers that support it. In that case, th…
Also, "the google.com URL will never be displayed" is a world with an internet I don't want to be a part of.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sounds like classic Google "Oops after oops": https://www.zdnet.com/article/former-mozilla-exec-google-has...
Yes $300 million every year to Mozille but WHAT SABOTAGE !