81–90 of 249 posts
Isn't AMP blatant copyright infringement? If so, how does a website owner demand the infringement to be taken down?
Arguably this means that Google is breaking point 11 of their own AMP Cache Guidelines [1]. If I ran any AMP pages, I would be quite upset. 1: https://github.com/ampproject/amphtml/blob/master/spec/amp-c...
We need more pushback against Google doing stuff like this, even when at first glance what they push for seems "positive."
What if it's not a bug, but Google testing user response (assuming Google is not stupid so Hanlon's razor may not apply)
At best they wanted to test user reaction, or at worst, they were hoping it wouldn't be discovered (see Wi-Fi scanning, Safari cookies block bypass, tracking Android users' location at all time, even when "disabled", etc).
Don't attribute to stupidity what can easily be explained by profit incentives (did I just invent a new saying/law?!).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
AMP should be the first stop on the federal government's antitrust investigation. The sheer unfairness of being granted search priority if you hand over your content to Google is the pinnacle of leveraging monopoly power to gain power in another industry.
What "power in another industry" is being gained?
Isn't AMP blatant copyright infringement? If so, how does a website owner demand the infringement to be taken down?
The sites themselves are opting into AMP, I believe. Google isn't just converting the site to AMP automatically. The owners of the site themselves have to add code to their site for it to work with AMP...
When I attended the Drupal Europe 2018 conference I had the opportunity to talk to Barb Palser of the AMP global relations team. I asked her in an intentionally innocent way: "I thought AMP is supposed to replace RSS, but from the presentation it seems like it's trying to be a better HTML?" to which she replied yes. I acted all optimistic, so she wouldn't be defensive, but this conversation sent chills down my spine…
When I attended the Drupal Europe 2018 conference I had the opportunity to talk to Barb Palser of the AMP global relations team. I asked her in an intentionally innocent way: "I thought AMP is supposed to replace RSS, but from the presentation it seems like it's trying to be a better HTML?" to which she replied yes. I acted all optimistic, so she wouldn't be defensive, but this conversation sent chills down my spine…
In that specific case, isn’t Barb correct, no chills needed?
However, in my experience the header is totally different. There is an (i) icon in the upper left corner that shows the link when tapped, and the upper right corner shows the share icon and tapping it opens the share dialog. Note this changed for me recently (I used to get the link icon like the poster).
So Google is clearly testing different behavior, which probably led to the bug. In any case, I'd note the version I got that I think the (i) is much less clear than the link icon, and I'm sure the end result is people clicking through to the source site less often. Fuck Google and their aggressive attempts to hijack the web even more than they already have.