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

How to fight back against Google AMP as a web user and a web developer

markosaric.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 570 posts

Re: How to fight back against Google AMP as a web user and a web developer

#391

Post by munk-a »

pixl97 wrote: post #272
emodendroket wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I'm well aware that that's what it's "about," just like I'm well aware that the search engine is mainly about advertising. I just don't care what it's about so long as the results are beneficial to me -- which they definitely are. When I see the AMP icon I know the page is going to load much faster

Always question what long term loss you are taking for these short term gains.

I really wish content servers considered that before letting all their sites become ad laden wastelands.

The web infrastructure we have today can respond to pages blindly fast if proper optimization is done, bloated front end frameworks and malvertising counter all of that to draw it down to molasses speeds - and the "I want to server my stuff to my users" argument is only valid if it's to extracting ad revenue from them - I think it's just time to reeducate people on the fact that ads may subsidize content but they can't fully sponsor it outside of niche situations.

Re: How to fight back against Google AMP as a web user and a web developer

#394

Post by munk-a »

gregable wrote: post #348
jammygit wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m just annoyed at my links being hijacked. When I click a link, my intention is to visit someone’s page, not to view it through some sort of creepy iframe. When I go to share a link, why is it a google link instead of the newspaper? Why do I have to spend a minute or two hunting for the real one in the ugly ui?

Publishers who implement Signed Exchanges get AMP links directly to their site with no iframe viewer on browsers that support the technology: https://amp.dev/documentation/guides-and-tutorials/optimize-... https://github.com/WICG/webpackage/blob/master/explainer.md

Doing a thing and then offering a service or agreement to undo the thing is not the same as never doing a thing and is usually a pretty clear signal of some underhanded doingness.

Re: How to fight back against Google AMP as a web user and a web developer

#397

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

joshuamorton wrote: post #318
stephenr wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It strengthens googles control over the web.

In what way though? Like that's super generic and not particularly meaningful without a more concrete explanation.

No, there's nothing like super generic about it.

Google has a de facto monopoly on site rankings, which gives it de facto editorial control over the content of the Internet down to a very fine level.

If Google decides to drop a site from search, that site loses traffic and is effectively removed from visibility.

This is not a user choice. Users do not to get to say "Well, that site is too slow for me, so I won't visit it again. And actually I don't like the content either."

It's not a site owner choice. Owners can't respond to user preferences by improving performance or offering different content.

It's a Google choice. And the reasons for Google's choices are typically opaque, largely unstated, and never negotiated directly with site owners.

It's absolutely unacceptable for a single unaccountable corporation to have this level level of control over global information infrastructure.

In fact the whole idea of generic but opaque site ranking is toxic to an open Internet, and always has been. The idea that page rank has some kind of objective user value - as opposed to monopoly value - has always been debatable.

It was tolerable conceit in the days of Alta Vista when search was a research project, and some level of good faith was assumed.

But Google has trashed that good faith by operating like a bad actor - and monopolist - in numerous ways, AMP being the most recent example.

So no - not generic. Not even close.

Re: How to fight back against Google AMP as a web user and a web developer

#398

Post by lern_too_spel »

stephenr wrote: post #194
lern_too_spel wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> google is abusing it's monopoly search position to pre-load. How is that abusing their monopoly search position? Abusing their monopoly search position would be making publishers integrate directly with them to enable preload, like Apple News. Instead, they ask publishers to serve documents that can safely be prerendered, and all their competitors get to (and do!) consume those documents as well to enable safe prer…

Without their monopoly search position no one would be forced to adopt amp and further strengthen said monopoly position.

> Without their monopoly search position no one would be forced to adopt amp

It is used by the major search engines in every major market, so yes, they would be forced to adopt AMP. Compare to Apple News, which gives the publisher even less control.

Once again, how is it abusing their monopoly position if all their competitors get to benefit from it for free?

Finally, how do you propose to enable safe prerendering on the web that you would be fine with? RSS enables the same thing but takes even more control away from the publisher, but you're presumably fine with that. Not a single person in all these AMP rant articles that pollute HN has ever proposed an alternative, with 99% of the ranters, including this one, not even understanding the basic fact that prerendering is the thing that AMP enables.

Re: How to fight back against Google AMP as a web user and a web developer

#399

Post by JoshMnem »

gregable wrote: post #340
stephenr wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Install a content blocker, and the original site sans bullshit is the best experience. Ironically the amp page is artificially slow when blocking amp’s JS because they force an 8 second delay - via required boilerplate css - before content is visible.

You misunderstand the 8 second CSS animation in the AMP boilerplate. Here's the code (simplified): body { animation:-amp-start 8s steps(1,end) 0s 1 normal both} @keyframes -amp-start{from{visibility:hidden}to{visibility:visible}} body{animation:none} See the noscript section: if javascript is disabled, the CSS displays the body immediately. If Javascript is enabled, but for some reason the AMP javascript fails to loa…

The 8-second delay is there to punish users who block JavaScript that is loaded from Google's servers (with ad-blockers) but still have JavaScript enabled.
Post reply on HN