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

Where Am I? NYTimes or Google?

theinternetbytes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 381 posts

Re: Where Am I? NYTimes or Google?

#311

Post by jeffbee »

ori_b wrote: post #104
jeffbee wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, it's the going opinion of HN for years that the main problem with AMP is it shows the actual origin instead of the proxied origin. Lying about the URL is something hundreds of HN comments have angrily demanded.

No. The complaint is that Google is redirecting the content to servers that they control.

This is not correct. Anyone can host AMP. See, for example, amp.cnn.com. Google hosts AMP content for its customers who elect to use that service. It’s not a nefarious plot.

Re: Where Am I? NYTimes or Google?

#312

Post by a9h74j »

DougBTX wrote: post #169
eternalban wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How does centralizing content on Google from multiple sources improve decentralization? It actually makes perfect sense in Doublespeak. /s

They’re suggesting a web technology which would allow any website to host content for any other website, under the original site’s URL, as long as the bundle is signed by the original site. That could be quite interesting of a site like archive.org, as the url bar could show the original url. But AMP is a much narrower technology, I’d imagine only Google would be able to impersonate other websites, essentially centra…

I see where you are going, but what if my website is updated?Is the archive at address _myurl_ invalidated, or is there a new address where it can be found? I am thinking of reproducible URLs for academic references or qualified procedures, for example, which might or might not matter in the intended use case.

Could there be net-neutrality-like questions in all this as well?

Re: Where Am I? NYTimes or Google?

#313

Post by ehsankia »

w-ll wrote: post #4

The shenanigans Google been doing to the url bar is super hostile. Trying to copy the domain of a url without the protocol just infuriates me.

Isn't it just an extra click? Click one, it highlights the whole thing, click a second time and you see the full URL with the protocol.

Re: Where Am I? NYTimes or Google?

#315

Post by SpeakForMyself »

Totally disagree with this drama whoever is putting on for the sake of being in the group of 'anti-google so I am looked as if I am so smart and so know it all and google is trying to control everyone and nobody sees it except me now I am writing a post to tell the world how different I am'

As a user, before learning computer knowledge, I am so thankful and amazed by those AMP pages, because they are really fast! And I barely look at this URL thing to care for security which is huge deal to those conspiracy queens, because as non-tech user I don't know a heck about URL, all I care is how fast a page is presented to me.

So, no, the problem is only you, yes, you can just use a dramatic title just because you are so bored with your life to cause a scene, you are only embracing yourself and bring some noise to this already chaotic world, please, go find yourself something to do instead of trying so hard to be internet famous. Thank you.

Re: Where Am I? NYTimes or Google?

#316

Post by ehsankia »

fabrice_d wrote: post #300
ehsankia wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure what you describe there but it sounds much more complicated than it is. Isn't signed exchanges basically CDN's without having to setup DNS? It's in theory no different than using CloudFlare to serve your content, except any CDN can just serve it without giving them access to your domain.

Or you could store signed exchanges on platforms like Dat or IPFS and get real decentralization.

Right, the point is that anyone can serve the content through any platform, which is why it allows decentralization. But I just don't understand why people are hanging so tightly to the idea that a URL is a direct path to a server, because that just isn't true.

Re: Where Am I? NYTimes or Google?

#317

Post by tyingq »

tgv wrote: post #149
remexre wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I publish mycoolthing.com/thing, it could be mirrored over a P2P network as peer1.com/rehosted/mycoolthing.com/thing, peer2.com/rehosted/mycoolthing.com/thing, etc., in a way that would make it evident to end-users not familiar with the protocol that the content is from mycoolthing.com.

AMP is of course not P2P.

I think the point is that signed exchanges ( https://developers.google.com/web/updates/2018/11/signed-exc...) could potentially be useful, if separated from AMP, and made an actually secure thing. Like, for example, the spec doesn't require specific Google controlled js URLS to be in the content.

Re: Where Am I? NYTimes or Google?

#318

Post by priyaranjan »

superasn wrote: post #2

Yes this has been a big issue for a very long time now. Google wants to push a release where it will display the hostname of the amp site even if the content is being served from google.com[1]. Mozilla (and Apple) are strictly against it and thank god for Mozilla. If Google had a bigger market share this would already be something we would have been living with. I'm sure there are better sources for this, but here is…

This has been discussed over & over again and there is no representation from amp team to make it any better. I was surprised to realise how much my life changed when I started using firefox + duckduckgo. Full time, at work & home, on macOS & android.

Re: Where Am I? NYTimes or Google?

#319

Post by jml7c5 »

domenicd wrote: post #42
Spivak wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t really think Google’s plan is that weird. And it would be amazing for decentralized networks, archiving, and offline web apps. Google can’t just serve nyt.com — they can serve a specific bundle of resources published and signed by nyt.com verified by your browser to be authentic and unmodified.

+1. The way I think about it is that signed exchanges are basically a way of getting the benefits of a CDN without turning over the keys to your entire kingdom to a third party. Instead you just allow distribution of a single resource (perhaps a bundle), in a crytographically verifiable way. Stated another way, with a typical CDN setup the user has to trust their browser, the CDN, and the source. With signed exchange…

I could see some sort of alternative URL bar ("https://nyt.com/somearticle/ | served by https://somecdn.example.org/blah"), but complete replacement is far too dangerous and confusing in that it is completely hidden.

Re: Where Am I? NYTimes or Google?

#320

Post by logicalmonster »

mulmen wrote: post #141
Spivak wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t really think Google’s plan is that weird. And it would be amazing for decentralized networks, archiving, and offline web apps. Google can’t just serve nyt.com — they can serve a specific bundle of resources published and signed by nyt.com verified by your browser to be authentic and unmodified.

How does centralizing content on Google from multiple sources improve decentralization? The web is already decentralized. That's why it is a web. AMP is a scourge. It's a bad idea being pushed by bad actors.

Please fact check me on this, but the ostensible initial justification for AMP wasn't decentralization, but speed. Businesses had started bloating up their websites with garbage trackers and other pointless marketing code that slowed down performance to unbrowsable levels. Some websites would cause your browser to come close to freezing because of bloat. So Google tried to formalize a small subset of technologies for publishers to use to allow for lightning fast reading, in other words, saving them from themselves. AMP might be best viewed as a technical attempt to solve a cultural problem: you could already achieve fast websites by being disciplined in the site you build, Google was just able to use its clout to force publishers to do it. As for what it’s morphed into, I’m not really a fan because google is trying to capitalize on it and publishers are trying various tricks to introduce bloat back into AMP anyway. The right answer might be just for Google to drop it and rank page speed for normal websites far higher than it already does.
Post reply on HN