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

Google no longer requires AMP, but the replacement might be worse

theregister.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 238 posts

Re: Google no longer requires AMP, but the replacement might be worse

#171

Post by scott_w »

nybble41 wrote: post #170
scott_w wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not about “data” moving over borders. This is about services being provided from one country to another. This is something governments already regulate within their borders (and have for centuries). This is something that’s already heavily regulated for other industries e.g. financial services. There’s nothing novel about the GDPR in that aspect.

> This is not about “data” moving over borders. This is about services being provided from one country to another. Services which involve nothing but data, and thus still fall under the category of "data moving over borders". And, consequently, freedom of speech.

No service involves “nothing but data.” This has nothing to do with freedom of speech, it’s governing the rules of business transactions between two entities across borders. Stop throwing out spurious terms to try and cloud the debate.

Re: Google no longer requires AMP, but the replacement might be worse

#172

Post by captn3m0 »

tomjen3 wrote: post #164
captn3m0 wrote: post #141

Maybe browsers should accept the text/markdown mimetype natively, instead of AMP. Covers 80% of the usecases, with a drastic reduction in complexity and pageload times.

Which Markdown though? Common mark, Gitlab, etc? Do we get any extensions? I like tables. HTML is not bad and it is easier to parse than markdown, the trouble is javascript and the ways ads abuse them. Strip that out, set the size of images and you can create a better experience for your users without changing all browsers. However if we can get wild requests for new content types, then I would love text/latex, so th…

Accept headers can negotiate extensions I suppose, but browsers can decide what they’d like to support, same as the rest of HTML standards.

In the last decade, I’ve seen browsers drop content types (FTP) and adopt media formats (WebP). But no new publication formats. If my browser can render PDF, why shouldn’t it render Markdown?

Re: Google no longer requires AMP, but the replacement might be worse

#173

Post by scott_w »

nybble41 wrote: post #168
scott_w wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Put simply: your logic is insane and no government adopts it, for good reason. Longer version: governments adopt rules based on what works for them and their population. This includes rules that govern what can and can’t be sold in a business transaction. This is a principle as old as government itself. It makes sense that governments then apply these rules to things going in and out of its borders. It would be nuts…

> This includes rules that govern what can and can’t be sold in a business transaction. This is a principle as old as government itself. If we're talking about a "business transaction" as in an exchange of physical goods across the border, then I agree. I said that it was unjust, not that it was without precedent. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that I believe in the concept of government itself. The cor…

Except the entire debate started because of the statement that this is new legal precedent.

I’m not interested in whether you believe in government or not because that’s debating a fantasy world that simply doesn’t exist.

Re: Google no longer requires AMP, but the replacement might be worse

#174

Post by blowski »

jsnell wrote: post #60
blowski wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's phrasing the problem in a format where the only solution is Google. Re-phrasing it as "What else can a search engine do to stop being gamed?" opens up a lot more options. The real problem here is not 'gamed search engines' but too much centralisation, with Google owning the search engine, the browser, and the ad platform. This solution makes that problem worse, not better.

Sorry, no. You're moving the goalposts. The criticism from eli was not e.g. that using page speed as a ranking criteria is intrinsically bad. It was that the data was sourced only from Chrome (including the italics). It's like I've fallen into a crazy parallel dimension. For more than *five years* HN commenters have been ranting about how AMP is not needed, and all that's needed is using page speed as the signal. And…

If someone goes from regularly punching me in the arm to kicking me in the shins, I'm not going to say "gee thanks for not punching me in the arm any more".

Shifting from one technology to another is not a solution when all the options vacuum and hoard data to further entrench Google's position. A real choice would be Google splitting the different parts of their business model they are leveraging to lock out competitors, but since that's not good for their shareholders, I don't expect to see it any time soon.

Re: Google no longer requires AMP, but the replacement might be worse

#175

Post by Google234 »

netr0ute wrote: post #166
topicseed wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I do appreciate my ad revenue to pay my team members and myself so I won't be the one recommending that.

Hot Take: If your website needs ads to survive, it wasn't that good to begin with.

Let me guess, you also install paywall bypass extensions?

Re: Google no longer requires AMP, but the replacement might be worse

#176

Post by wyager »

scott_w wrote: post #125
wyager wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't care if it's "unusual" or not - I'm just pointing out that the legal model you're espousing will inevitably result in a siloed internet. Don't shoot the messenger.

I’m not espousing a legal model at all. I’m just pointing out that literally no government in history has ever said “you can send whatever you want into our country with no restrictions.”

That’s how the internet worked in most countries until recently.

In any case, once again it’s irrelevant. Whatever your justification for it, this behavior will lead to internet siloization.

Re: Google no longer requires AMP, but the replacement might be worse

#177

Post by wyager »

jakelazaroff wrote: post #129
wyager wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The restrictions don't need to directly restrict how packets get sent - if they impose tax/regulatory costs for packets getting routed a certain way, the end result will be the same.

This is a bit like complaining about restrictions on "sending atoms to the EU" when they decide to impose tariffs or safety regulations on consumer goods. Businesses shouldn't get to flout regulations just because they happen to be digital.

Cool opinion. I’m not disagreeing with it. I don’t care. I’m just explaining that a logical entailment of your opinion is that the internet will be siloed off. Stop trying to convince me that your opinion is right. It’s totally irrelevant whether or not it’s right.

Re: Google no longer requires AMP, but the replacement might be worse

#178

Post by wyager »

scott_w wrote: post #131
nybble41 wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> your house, your rules You're not in their "house". You're just communicating with someone who is. If some foreign government has a problem with that communication they should take it up with the party who is physically within their jurisdiction—not that I believe they have any just standing there either.

You’re trying to do business in another country with different rules. If you want to sell food into the EU, you need to comply with their food safety regulations. Why does this magically change when someone utters the words “the internet?”

Your model is nonsense - physical goods are not the same as digital goods.

Regardless of whether or not your model actually makes sense, an inevitable consequence of your model is that the internet will become siloed at a national level. It sounds like you’re fine with that though.

Re: Google no longer requires AMP, but the replacement might be worse

#179

Post by wyager »

scott_w wrote: post #171
nybble41 wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is not about “data” moving over borders. This is about services being provided from one country to another. Services which involve nothing but data, and thus still fall under the category of "data moving over borders". And, consequently, freedom of speech.

No service involves “nothing but data.” This has nothing to do with freedom of speech, it’s governing the rules of business transactions between two entities across borders. Stop throwing out spurious terms to try and cloud the debate.

> No service involves “nothing but data.”

May I introduce you to services such as Wikipedia.com and news.ycombinator.com?

Re: Google no longer requires AMP, but the replacement might be worse

#180

Post by onli »

mdoms wrote: post #165
onli wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can not scroll faster than images load. You can maybe jump via the scrollbar faster to a page position than images load, but that's it. That's at least with the HTML5 async image standard in Firefox. It's up to the browser after all, so if yours loads images too slow the issue might be there. And sure, if the images are huge they will take a long time to load, but that's also covered by the core web vitals. A sit…

What absolute nonsense. It doesn't matter which "async image standard" you use, you're fundamentally limited by my internet connection. I agree completely with GP, I would rather open a page in the background, give it some time to load all of the images and then browse it. Lazy loading is a pain. Your test case is totally meaningless, the images are under 3kb. Full (non-lazy) image loading is far more important on we…

If you implement lazy image loading yourself in JS you will see that the implementation actually makes a big difference in how noticeable it is. The browser does a good job with it. Of course your internet connection can limit you, but it just won't do so on regular broadband connections for sound image sizes.

You can always construct a theoretical case where it does not work great. But on those pages and connections loading all the images in advance will usually also lead to a bad experience.

Post reply on HN