Web by Google (TM) • Hacker News Board

Re: Web by Google (TM)

#281

Post by CameronNemo » Sun, Aug 16, 2020, 4:13 PM UTC

a5withtrrs wrote: post #131

dmurray wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There might have been a Firefox extension, but it probably did not make the cut for the new mobile version.

Re: Web by Google (TM)

#282

Post by cheph » Sun, Aug 16, 2020, 4:13 PM UTC

mjburgess wrote: post #270

cheph wrote: post #234

> Two deficiencies have determined the course the Web has taken: lack of native search and lack of native payments. What exactly is the expectation here, that there is one integrated protocols stack that covers all of this? I don't see why. Nothing is stopping someone from building P2P distributed search engines, and nothing is stopping someone from building "safe and easy way of exchanging funds". Given that we stil…

Just read it as an interesting counter-factual: if the web had had search/payments via some native protocol, then it would have developed without google. There is also a reasonable argument to saying that search/payments are so fundamental to what the web became that a solution at the protocol-layer would be appropriate.

Well I would agree if those things were easy to solve universally, and were solved universally, it would be nice, but nothing in the development of the web has been easily solved universally, and there is no central committee choosing to solve these problems or to not solve them. IETF has an open process, open to everyone.

If the author wants to integrate it into HTTP, well they can actually try and make that case through the open standards process.

The questions of what does native suppoert imply and in what protocol should it be integrated are still unanswered. It seems very low effort to me, at least give a high level rundown of what that practically means and what he expects to see.

Bitcoin runs on open standard protocols, why is it not native? Is it because it is not ratfied by the IETF? Same question goes for existing P2P search engines. And even with protocols, you still need infrastructure. HTTP being an open protocol does not give me free HTTP hosting, and search indexing and lookup similarly won't be free.

I think if it was easy to solve these problems and integrate them into HTTP it would be easy to solve them outside HTTP and it is not clear why the solutions must be integrated into some existing protocol like TCP, IP or HTTP.

Re: Web by Google (TM)

#283

Post by jacquesm » Sun, Aug 16, 2020, 4:14 PM UTC

Xorlev wrote: post #273

jacquesm wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Textbook case of 'whataboutism'. Besides, avoiding Facebook is easy. Avoiding Google is impossible. I am much more worried about Google because of that.

Disclaimer: I work for Google, but not on Chrome or Search. There's plenty of worry to go around. I would like to put aside the (very understandable) fear about Google for a second because I think the GP makes a good point. My parents used to use the open web, but have also more or less exclusively started to use Facebook to "surf the web" and get all of their information. The 2016 election was a joke, my mother woul…

Nice of you to speak out. If I were working at Google I'd be more worried about Facebook too. Because your paycheck more or less depends on you being able to tell yourself that you are working for 'the good guys'. But in my book both are equally rotten, it's just that this thread is about Google, not about Facebook and that makes these clear attempts at deflection.

Google does plenty to spread misinformation as well, Youtube is a sewer giving outright conspiracy nutcases a platform, they continuously promote Breitbart, infowars and other despicable websites through Google News (the suggestion alone that I would like to see any of that content is revolting), they try to pretend that they care about end user privacy, including plastering all of Brussels' airport Zaventem full of posters and displays proclaiming that, never saw such a poster outside of that airport, just maybe they figured that's a good investment to reach regulators on the hoof.

Google is a dishonest and manipulative company that tries hard to pretend it is a sheep. But the teeth are clearly visible and those bloody pawprints tell a different story. I for one am not buying the 'Facebook is more evil than Google' line for a second, if only because FB at least stays in its lane, Google is everywhere.

Re: Web by Google (TM)

#284

Post by donatzsky » Sun, Aug 16, 2020, 4:15 PM UTC

CameronNemo wrote: post #275

noahmasur wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if mobile Safari domination is partly because iOS apps themselves use "Safari" when displaying webpages. If I tap an article using the Octal HN app, it opens in an internal "browser view" that is just an instance of Safari.

Is the Android webview using WebKit or blink now? I wonder how that would show up.

That depends on the app, and if Firefox is installed and is the default browser.

Re: Web by Google (TM)

#285

Post by casusbelli » Sun, Aug 16, 2020, 4:16 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #283

Xorlev wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disclaimer: I work for Google, but not on Chrome or Search. There's plenty of worry to go around. I would like to put aside the (very understandable) fear about Google for a second because I think the GP makes a good point. My parents used to use the open web, but have also more or less exclusively started to use Facebook to "surf the web" and get all of their information. The 2016 election was a joke, my mother woul…

Nice of you to speak out. If I were working at Google I'd be more worried about Facebook too. Because your paycheck more or less depends on you being able to tell yourself that you are working for 'the good guys'. But in my book both are equally rotten, it's just that this thread is about Google, not about Facebook and that makes these clear attempts at deflection. Google does plenty to spread misinformation as well,…

>they continuously promote Breitbart, infowars

But those are good things.

Re: Web by Google (TM)

#286

Post by mjburgess » Sun, Aug 16, 2020, 4:18 PM UTC

cheph wrote: post #282

mjburgess wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just read it as an interesting counter-factual: if the web had had search/payments via some native protocol, then it would have developed without google. There is also a reasonable argument to saying that search/payments are so fundamental to what the web became that a solution at the protocol-layer would be appropriate.

Well I would agree if those things were easy to solve universally, and were solved universally, it would be nice, but nothing in the development of the web has been easily solved universally, and there is no central committee choosing to solve these problems or to not solve them. IETF has an open process, open to everyone. If the author wants to integrate it into HTTP, well they can actually try and make that case th…

I don't think the author wants to do anything. It's a counter-factual to illuminate how central google is, not a proposal.

Re: Web by Google (TM)

#287

Post by eigenvector » Sun, Aug 16, 2020, 4:18 PM UTC

Xorlev wrote: post #273

jacquesm wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Textbook case of 'whataboutism'. Besides, avoiding Facebook is easy. Avoiding Google is impossible. I am much more worried about Google because of that.

Disclaimer: I work for Google, but not on Chrome or Search. There's plenty of worry to go around. I would like to put aside the (very understandable) fear about Google for a second because I think the GP makes a good point. My parents used to use the open web, but have also more or less exclusively started to use Facebook to "surf the web" and get all of their information. The 2016 election was a joke, my mother woul…

YouTube is as big of a purveyor of misinformation as Facebook. I just spent two hours yesterday dissecting all manner of coronavirus misinformation my mom learned from YouTube. The insidious aspect of it is that she never went looking for that - she started off watching legitimate sources like credible media outlets but autoplay took her further and further down the rabbit hole without even realizing she was no longer watching the same source. Outrageous, deliberately deceptive propaganda has weaponized the platform and Google is making billions shovelling that content to unsuspecting people. Everyone gets paid and society has to deal with the fallout of millions of misinformed citizens during a global pandemic.

Respectfully, there's plenty to fix in your own house and you as a Googler have 1,000 times more of a voice to push for change than the average person.

Re: Web by Google (TM)

#288

Post by jacquesm » Sun, Aug 16, 2020, 4:21 PM UTC

eigenvector wrote: post #287

Xorlev wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disclaimer: I work for Google, but not on Chrome or Search. There's plenty of worry to go around. I would like to put aside the (very understandable) fear about Google for a second because I think the GP makes a good point. My parents used to use the open web, but have also more or less exclusively started to use Facebook to "surf the web" and get all of their information. The 2016 election was a joke, my mother woul…

YouTube is as big of a purveyor of misinformation as Facebook. I just spent two hours yesterday dissecting all manner of coronavirus misinformation my mom learned from YouTube. The insidious aspect of it is that she never went looking for that - she started off watching legitimate sources like credible media outlets but autoplay took her further and further down the rabbit hole without even realizing she was no longe…

And it is nearly impossible to report those videos. Twitter is the only company so far that seems to have some kind of working moderation but even they could do much better.

Re: Web by Google (TM)

#289

Post by cocktailpeanuts » Sun, Aug 16, 2020, 4:23 PM UTC

PaulHoule wrote: post #117

cocktailpeanuts wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could make a case that most internet platforms are increasingly social. Think about what would be left if you took away all "social" apps from the internet. Even if we don't go that far, think about non-social online apps that don't use the "web". For example, iCloud, Dropbox, Microsoft Office, Adobe creative cloud, etc. Most users of these apps use native apps instead of a clunky browser.

I dunno. It is what you've been taught. Some people think Microsoft Word is a clunky native app, others that Google Docs is a clunky browser app. Maybe they are both right.

This has nothing to do with my argument. My point is that the reality is a huge chunk of internet usage does not happen inside a browser. Whether it's a good idea or not is irrelevant. The fact that there exists a Microsoft Word powered by the Internet but not inside a browser. And the fact that every cloud powered app on mobile does not use the browser. These are facts.

Re: Web by Google (TM)

#290

Post by cheph » Sun, Aug 16, 2020, 4:23 PM UTC

mjburgess wrote: post #286

cheph wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well I would agree if those things were easy to solve universally, and were solved universally, it would be nice, but nothing in the development of the web has been easily solved universally, and there is no central committee choosing to solve these problems or to not solve them. IETF has an open process, open to everyone. If the author wants to integrate it into HTTP, well they can actually try and make that case th…

I don't think the author wants to do anything. It's a counter-factual to illuminate how central google is, not a proposal.

I still expect them to make a more coherent case, I still don't know what native means here, still don't know why existing solutions are different from what native means.

It is not stated as a counterfactual either, it is stated as direct criticism, e.g.

> The Web’s orignal architects were off base on hyperlinks; it turns out people just want to skip right to the answer they’re looking for.

Who are the original architects? Should we remove hyperlinks? Who suggested hyperlinks as an alternative to search, or even "native search".

I expect substance, this article has none.