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

511–520 of 566 posts

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

#511

Post by kovac »

joshuamorton wrote: post #290
tyingq wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You asked how and he answered. Whether it's an issue or not is a separate matter that none of us are going to agree on.

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

#513

Post by kovac »

mdavidn wrote: post #259
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 used Fastmail for over a decade, and they have yet to give me a reason to regret that move. Though it irks me that Google can still rummage through so many of my conversations because my contacts still use Gmail.

I switched to Outlook email. I've been considering changing to Fastmail (considered a few others too), but this is the reason i thought emails are hopeless now. Most people I know are on Gmail.

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

#514

Post by regularfry »

kempbellt wrote: post #492
madeofpalk wrote: post #485

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

What is stored in your cache was loaded from their servers when you originally visited. Also, you can clear your cache at any time you choose to re-fetch the original content from the provider. 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…

A provider uses a CDN at their discretion, but it's totally legitimate to have a client-site cache as well. If I've got 20 users going through a squid proxy to get to the internet, that's something the provider has to live with. Not to diminish your core point, which I think is correct, but there are limits on what providers should be able to expect.

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

#515

Post by raxxorrax »

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…

The already proclaimed their desire to get rid of the URL. I don't think this is in the interest of the user and more in the interest of market dominance and information filtering.

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

#516

Post by pfortuny »

stevenjohns wrote: post #460
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.

As commitees dilute responsibility usually via anonimity (“it is not me, it is the majority”), you should never attribute personal (human) traits to them. Their members deny responsibility: then you must assume the committee is irresponsible (i.e. has no human intent).

So: the committee only wants what the papers say. In this case: benefits.

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

#517

Post by teraku »

bootlooped wrote: post #13
teraku wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's illegal to do that in the EU, so probably only affects non-EU terretories.

A/B testing is illegal in the EU?

Not A/B testing, but not showing the original link is illegal in the EU.

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

#518

Post by geeeeWow »

pfortuny wrote: post #516
stevenjohns wrote: post #460

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

As commitees dilute responsibility usually via anonimity (“it is not me, it is the majority”), you should never attribute personal (human) traits to them. Their members deny responsibility: then you must assume the committee is irresponsible (i.e. has no human intent). So: the committee only wants what the papers say. In this case: benefits.

Ha! Good one!

My shit doesn't stink either.

You see, I only eat food that smells good, so how could my shit possibly smell bad?

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

#519

Post by lern_too_spel »

glenstein wrote: post #503
lern_too_spel wrote: post #493

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AMP hosting is already open to everyone, and multiple third parties other than Google deliver AMP pages.

Interesting. Are there examples I can search for right now? For instance, are there searches I could do for a news article, that will show an AMP for a CNN article that's on a non-google url? Do you have a ballpark estimate of what percentage of total amps are delivered by non Google domains? Also how would you reconcile your comment with that of madeofpalk who appears to be treating that possibility as a hypothetica…

> an AMP for a CNN article that's on a non-google url?

All AMP pages exist at non-Google URLs. They are just cached by the link aggregator (typically a search engine), so the link aggregator can prerender them without deanonymizing the user to the publisher until the user clicks the link.

AMP served by CNN: https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/05/27/world/france-shooting-sai...

The same page served out of Bing's AMP cache: https://www.bing.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/05/27/world/...

> Do you have a ballpark estimate of what percentage of total amps are delivered by non Google domains?

All of them (100%) are delivered by non-Google domains to Google, Bing, and other caches.

> 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?

madeofpalk's comment makes perfect sense if you understood what I wrote above. Why should CNN or Bing be told that you have searched for a particular news article on Google before you have clicked it? The page has to be served from the link aggregator the user is browsing to maintain the user's privacy when prerendering results.

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

#520

Post by lern_too_spel »

glenstein wrote: post #506
lern_too_spel wrote: post #501

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

This is a good example of the contradictions within AMP that limit it's usability as a technology. Unless AMP was really intended as a privacy tool this whole time and I just didn't know it, publishers probably "should" know the same amount they would get to know if you visited one of their actual pages, if you are visiting an AMP for the purpose of consuming their content rather than merely searching for it. But if…

Your comment does not make any sense to me. Are we talking about the same thing? A snippet is a summary of the page served by the search engine. The publisher currently does not have any idea that a particular user has seen a snippet, so publishers do "know the same amount" as they did before with AMP, which is nothing.

> Is that how you feel about regular search results?

Regular search results have snippets.

Post reply on HN