Live data from Hacker News

Google no longer providing original URL in AMP for image search results

twitter.com

391–400 of 566 posts

Re: Google no longer providing original URL in AMP for image search results

#391
post #26

AMP really has to go away, its a MITM attack on the internet. Google discontinues so many services, why is AMP not one of them yet?

The worst thing I've seen recently is amp URLs for reddit threads. It's one bad thing (new reddit UI) wrapped in a worse thing (AMP), and getting back to classic reddit takes a lot of gymnastics. The stupid part is that the amp page is indistinguishable from the (new) reddit page (the AMP page comes complete with the "download our app" popup). So I don't see how it's providing any speed/experience benefit.

[deleted]

Re: Google no longer providing original URL in AMP for image search results

#392
post #26

AMP really has to go away, its a MITM attack on the internet. Google discontinues so many services, why is AMP not one of them yet?

The worst thing I've seen recently is amp URLs for reddit threads. It's one bad thing (new reddit UI) wrapped in a worse thing (AMP), and getting back to classic reddit takes a lot of gymnastics. The stupid part is that the amp page is indistinguishable from the (new) reddit page (the AMP page comes complete with the "download our app" popup). So I don't see how it's providing any speed/experience benefit.

>getting back to classic reddit takes a lot of gymnastics

http://old.reddit.com still works, though

Hope they are sane enough to keep it forever

Re: Google no longer providing original URL in AMP for image search results

#393
post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Of all the anti-competitive actions google has taken around search results, AMP is by far the worst. I hope they get smacked down for it in the upcoming anti-trust lawsuit. This reminds me of the EU Internet Explorer lawsuit, which was peanuts compared to what Google is doing right now. Between Google Search, Chrome, Android, Youtube, Gmail, Google Maps, Google Docs, AMP and likely 5 more things I forgot, they've st…

Their ad business is more or less their only business. Everything else is paid for by that.

which is why it should be segregated from the products people find useful

Re: Google no longer providing original URL in AMP for image search results

#394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How is this different than today, where many sites use js from google, either as a cdn or part of the ads infrastructure? It's different because it's a requirement. nytimes.com is moving to phase out all third-party advertising data, so presumably they could design their page such that it only accesses their resources. With a signed exchange, that would allow them to nicely compartmentalize and contain privacy to t…

> With a signed exchange, that would allow them to nicely compartmentalize and contain privacy to their site, if they aren't required to load and run some Google supplied JavaScript. Then I'd direct you to Gregable's comment (who is a person who actually works on AMP) that > the AMP project is actively working to move the origin (control/host) of the AMP Javascript to the publisher's own domain, as well as allow a ve…

I'm not convinced by your argument that since nothing evil has happened in the last 20 years, we are safe in the future.

It's about power dynamics. If you get a consolidation of power, that's going to be open to abuse. Maybe not now, maybe in the future, who knows. Democratic systems have checks and balances in the public domain. Google doesn't have this.

Re: Google no longer providing original URL in AMP for image search results

#395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How is this different than today, where many sites use js from google, either as a cdn or part of the ads infrastructure? It's different because it's a requirement. nytimes.com is moving to phase out all third-party advertising data, so presumably they could design their page such that it only accesses their resources. With a signed exchange, that would allow them to nicely compartmentalize and contain privacy to t…

> With a signed exchange, that would allow them to nicely compartmentalize and contain privacy to their site, if they aren't required to load and run some Google supplied JavaScript. Then I'd direct you to Gregable's comment (who is a person who actually works on AMP) that > the AMP project is actively working to move the origin (control/host) of the AMP Javascript to the publisher's own domain, as well as allow a ve…

> So while this isn't supported yet, the people working on it do ant that.

Good! For what it's worth, I'm slightly pro AMP based on the idea, I'm just not entirely happy with the current implementation. Fixing it to be less dependent on a Google resource is a good change, IMO.

I use copious Google services, such as Gmail and Drive, and Hangouts (or whatever it's called this week), and Android, but I'm leery of becoming more dependent on Google. It's to everyone's benefit if there's healthy competition between all parties, and to my personal benefit if I don't find that someone's gotten access to my google account and literally everything is open to them (which is why I always use a username/password combination for sites I create accounts for instead of linking my Google account... even if I know my email is @gmail.com so it's of limited use, for now. Baby steps).

> I'm unconvinced by such slippery slope arguments, given that the pushback were Google to do something like inject nefarious js would be swift. They've had the ability to do so for, well, 20 years now. They haven't yet.

First, it doesn't have to be nefarious. The bar for Google deciding they deserve analytics for content they "serve" is much lower than the bar for actually doing something illegal. I prefer not to place options to do what I consider the wrong thing for business gain in front of companies when it can be helped. Hope for the best, plan for the worst, and all that.

Second, that was a single one of the scenarios I listed. The others notably did nt rely on Google doing or not doing the right thing, because the decision is no longer in their hands. If Google is no longer the authority deciding (because they are gone, or have a new parent, or the data was taken), what Google would choose to do is irrelevant. That's why it's important to some people to reduce the information being collected. It's impossible to know what it will eventually be used for in the long term, so the prudent thing is to limit it, and/or compartmentalize it (that is, maybe I'm happy with nytimes.com knowing where else I clicked in their article, but I would prefer Google only know I loaded that first article).

Re: Google no longer providing original URL in AMP for image search results

#396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How does anyone think this is a good idea? A while back on one of the AMP discussions here, someone from Google weighed in. They said the data was clear: users not only accept it, they love AMP. I asked how they knew that, because if it was, say, just tracking how many people tried the 2-3 tap process to get to the original URL compared to how many people just engaged whatever you showed them, then the data might b…

Companies with shitty UI often make unfounded claims that "users prefer it." Adobe is another prime offender here. If anyone's word should NOT be taken as gospel for UI or branding, it's Google's.

Adobe users do prefer the UI to GIMP, for example.

Re: Google no longer providing original URL in AMP for image search results

#397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, but wtf??? "3. Extension-ready This update will initially include support for one of the most popular extensions on Android, uBlock Origin. Additional extensions will be supported in subsequent releases so you can customize and expand your mobile browsing experience even more." Why has Moz turned in to this almost fascist company all of a sudden. Like, what? Kill all but whitelisted extensions, which users ask…

IIRC, this is happening because of the complete internal rewrite - the relevant APIs to expose to extensions simply don't exist yet, and they're implementing them to get the most-wanted extensions available first.

They could use better messaging on this so people who are on firefox precisely for this reason don't think that something has fundamentally changed.

A statement along the lines of "We're working with the most popular Extension creators to get up to speed on the mobile extension API" (which could mean anything) would have been better.

Re: Google no longer providing original URL in AMP for image search results

#398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because now every asset you download from the web is a Google tracking resource. Is it really unclear what’s going on? When you perform a GET request for these assets you are being monitored. These requests end up being part of the profile built for you which is used for advertisement targeting and content recommendation. PS: You work for Google. Do you work on this project?

> When you perform a GET request for these assets you are being monitored. You'll only ever retrieve Google AMP cache results from the Google search page, where they were already able to track if you made such a request, since the link you clicked has trackers in it. So from that perspective, nothing changes. > PS: You work for Google. Do you work on this project? No, I work on mostly internal infrastructure. My inte…

Assume every website would use AMP. Like on mobile. How often do you get redirected to AMP already when you just click a random link? I sure do!

From then on, every asset it loaded via Google servers. Google now controls the entire internet. Google does this so it can serve its ads and track all users. It's as if I would only use Google for my internet surfing.

I don't use Google because I strongly believe it is an evil company, but if websites use AMP, then I am forced to hand over my data to Google even though I don't want to. Right now, I can block Google servers entirely. But if the entire web is served via AMP, I can't do it. And that's the whole reason AMP exists. So everything I do (or at least as much as possible) goes through Google servers.

You really do not see our concern? Really?

Re: Google no longer providing original URL in AMP for image search results

#399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> With a signed exchange, that would allow them to nicely compartmentalize and contain privacy to their site, if they aren't required to load and run some Google supplied JavaScript. Then I'd direct you to Gregable's comment (who is a person who actually works on AMP) that > the AMP project is actively working to move the origin (control/host) of the AMP Javascript to the publisher's own domain, as well as allow a ve…

> They've had the ability to do so for, well, 20 years now. They haven't yet. as we don’t have proof that google did not do nefarious things, we don’t have proof that they haven’t. with such monopoly and power distrust is useful thing.

> as we don’t have proof that google did not do nefarious things

We do have proof that they don't do the specific nefarious things being discussed here: injecting nefarious js into otherwise useful things. That's easy to determine.

Re: Google no longer providing original URL in AMP for image search results

#400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When you perform a GET request for these assets you are being monitored. You'll only ever retrieve Google AMP cache results from the Google search page, where they were already able to track if you made such a request, since the link you clicked has trackers in it. So from that perspective, nothing changes. > PS: You work for Google. Do you work on this project? No, I work on mostly internal infrastructure. My inte…

Would you bat an eye at Google acquiring CloudFlare? What they're pushing with Amp and the related technologies grants them a near-unavoidable man-in-the-middle position. (FWIW I am careful to avoid Google properties at a pretty high cost.)

> Would you bat an eye at Google acquiring CloudFlare?

Not anymore than I already do bat an eye at cloudflare.

(It's probably worth noting here specifically that I do work at Google, so my risk profile is probably different than yours, for me personally and speaking solely from a trust perspective, I'd probably prefer it if Google acquired CloudFlare since I would get a net increase in transparency, but I can understand why that isn't a general position, and there are other reasons I don't think Google acquiring cloudflare would be good).

Post reply on HN