Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Web by Google (TM)

landshark.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 496 posts

Re: Web by Google (TM)

#131

Post by a5withtrrs »

dmurray wrote: post #80
alangibson wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AMP is the most transparent land grab Google has pulled. It's technically unjustifiable, is arguably value destroying, and as a bonus you can't disable it. It only makes sense in terms of trying to lock marketers and publishers into a Google-led ecosystem.

Why can't I disable it? Shouldn't there be a browser extension that just rewrites all AMP links to the underlying source (if I understand right, this always exists - the page may be AMPified but it's still served from the publisher rather than from Google). This isn't a rhetorical question, I'm interested to know whether that would work. As I see it AMP can be just as big a problem just by being there by default on G…

I tried pihole blacklisting AMP domains from my PiHole. It works in that I can't accidentally click on them, but it won't re-write them and I usually have to strip out the "amp." part myself.

I haven't found a simple way that works on both my mobile and my desktop devices yet but I'd be interested in any recommendations.

Re: Web by Google (TM)

#132

Post by judge2020 »

crispyporkbites wrote: post #81
mnd999 wrote: post #8

I think we’re in a real low point right now. Gmail, AMP, Chrome, Android. So many peoples internet experience is from one place. With Amazon dominating retail, and Facebook under its various brands dominating social media, there isn’t much scope for other players. I don’t see another option than breaking theses companies up at this point.

I don’t think breaking them up is the only option- we need to continue to create innovative companies that defeat the incumbents. Its hard to see right now but history tells us it will come and they will fall, every incumbent always gets complacent and stops innovating and someone comes and cleans up. For example YT hasn’t fundamentally changed in a decade, and the user experience is starting to feel a little off (sp…

The absolute scale YouTube runs at makes me thing nobody else could foot the bill for it other than whoever the current biggest Advertisement giant is.

Re: Web by Google (TM)

#134

Post by alangibson »

kristopolous wrote: post #107
cmrdporcupine wrote: post #103

A lot of talk in this article about Google capturing the whole web, all valid points, but I find the Facebook walled garden even more terrifying. I see people now, often in online school parent groups I'm a part of, etc. who cannot even use email anymore, who don't use web pages at all, they get all their information through Facebook groups and Facebook, and only talk through Facebook messenger or sometimes SMS. E-ma…

Couldn't you have said the same thing 20 years ago and used "AOL" instead? There seems to be a large group of users who consistently fit this trend and the company names just get swapped occasionally

AOL died off because the world shifted to the open web. The only way Facebook or Google die off is if a similar paradigm shift occurs.

Re: Web by Google (TM)

#135

Post by chrisco255 »

searchableguy wrote: post #119
kristopolous wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Couldn't you have said the same thing 20 years ago and used "AOL" instead? There seems to be a large group of users who consistently fit this trend and the company names just get swapped occasionally

What's the difference between hn and a facebook group?

HN does not have 2 billion users and teams of thousands of developers working to exploit psychology and an ad monopoly to keep you on HN.

Re: Web by Google (TM)

#136

Post by jasode »

kristopolous wrote: post #107
cmrdporcupine wrote: post #103

A lot of talk in this article about Google capturing the whole web, all valid points, but I find the Facebook walled garden even more terrifying. I see people now, often in online school parent groups I'm a part of, etc. who cannot even use email anymore, who don't use web pages at all, they get all their information through Facebook groups and Facebook, and only talk through Facebook messenger or sometimes SMS. E-ma…

Couldn't you have said the same thing 20 years ago and used "AOL" instead? There seems to be a large group of users who consistently fit this trend and the company names just get swapped occasionally

>Couldn't you have said the same thing 20 years ago and used "AOL" instead? There seems to be a large group of users who consistently fit this trend and the company names just get swapped occasionally

AOL was dominant (~30 million dialup subscribers at its 2002 peak) but didn't build any "sticky" products such as Facebook's social graph (a very valuable online Rolodex contacts database of real names). Each dialup user of AOL didn't interact with each other that much back then because the internet wasn't as central to life like today. Thus, switching from AOL access via telephone modems to cable broadband was easier than today's idea of switching away from Facebook's connected contacts. (E.g. Even Google with all its billions and web dominance couldn't get Facebook users to switch to Google+ in 2011.)

That said, I still believe Facebook dominance can be supplanted but it will happen by accident : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15263715

Re: Web by Google (TM)

#137

Post by Eiskugel »

and?

I'm using the internet to buy things, research things, share memories, call people, pay, get payed etc.

Just because 20 years ago people build small websites (including me) doesn't mean the internet should be a bunch of private niche websites.

Not many people ever found my websites. No one cared.

Re: Web by Google (TM)

#138

Post by nogabebop23 »

kristopolous wrote: post #107
cmrdporcupine wrote: post #103

A lot of talk in this article about Google capturing the whole web, all valid points, but I find the Facebook walled garden even more terrifying. I see people now, often in online school parent groups I'm a part of, etc. who cannot even use email anymore, who don't use web pages at all, they get all their information through Facebook groups and Facebook, and only talk through Facebook messenger or sometimes SMS. E-ma…

Couldn't you have said the same thing 20 years ago and used "AOL" instead? There seems to be a large group of users who consistently fit this trend and the company names just get swapped occasionally

At its peak AOL had millions of users and the internet accounted for a tiny fraction of a person's life. The number of people who viewed AOL a "the internet" and the impact it had on them was a rounding error compared to FB's breadth and depth of integration into the very identity of it's userbase.

Re: Web by Google (TM)

#139

Post by easton »

dmitshur wrote: post #110
simias wrote: post #84

The problem is that, IMO, centralization of the internet is simply the natural course. Especially when people seem to care so little. Centralization is cheaper, easier to monetize, easier to control, easier to update and upgrade. That's why people prefer Discord to IRC, that's why people prefer Slack to SMTP or Jabber, that's why for many people these days the distinction between git and GitHub is blurry. I suspect t…

> Even here on HN you have threads full of people coming up with excuses for why they won't run Firefox, and that's a community that should understand the implication of those things. Genuine question, do you mind saying (or pointing to something) what are the implications of browser choice of individuals reading HN?

I mean, it’s the same story as Apple and the Mac. Consumers ask their pro/techie friend what they use, and do that. People buy MacBook Pros, people use Chrome. When pros say “I won’t use Firefox because this little feature doesn’t work exactly like Chrome”, their mom doesn’t either.

Re: Web by Google (TM)

#140

Post by alangibson »

andromeduck wrote: post #118
simias wrote: post #84

The problem is that, IMO, centralization of the internet is simply the natural course. Especially when people seem to care so little. Centralization is cheaper, easier to monetize, easier to control, easier to update and upgrade. That's why people prefer Discord to IRC, that's why people prefer Slack to SMTP or Jabber, that's why for many people these days the distinction between git and GitHub is blurry. I suspect t…

IMO one if the biggest blunders of Moz was not having had the vision to champion the open web by becoming an alternative monitization platform like Patreon. The biggest reason why the open web failed and will continue to fail is not because of aggregators like Google, Facebook, Reddit, and Twitter but rather because there's simply no way for people to vote with their wallets. Moz was uniquely positioned to drive such…

Totally agree. This is why I included the second of the Web's original sins in lack of native payments. We really need cryptocurrencies to succeed here. However I fear that that whole sector has been totally swamped by get rich quick and libertarian wackos with no interest as something as pedestrian as Web Bucks
Post reply on HN