Live data from Hacker News

Google proposed Web Bundles could threaten the Web as we know it

ghacks.net

81–84 of 84 posts

Re: Google proposed Web Bundles could threaten the Web as we know it

#81
post #18

I for one believe in the specified use cases of Web Bundles, & believe they are worthy. https://wicg.github.io/webpackage/draft-yasskin-wpack-use-ca... What we have here is a budding conspiracy theory, not even a theory, just gesticulation. Consensual Delusion, a belief that we are persecuted by secret forces that must be held off, held at bay. This started months ago with an incoherent rambling ticket by the Brave a…

I see many of the previous changes/actions by Google as hostile/harmful [1][2][3]. I do not want Google to have any say on the future of the web whatsoever, it being a financially motivated body.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17942252

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16164549

[3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23221264

The list can go on

Re: Google proposed Web Bundles could threaten the Web as we know it

#82
post #8

I think their idea is to combine that with signing the bundles, so a page from www.someserver.com can be served by anyone, aka Google. I guess this would mean Google can serve all content on the web. There seems to be a strong urge in Google to cut the connection between then endpoints of the web and become the central authority. Make all traffic flow through their machines. Let no information arrive at the endpoints…

Very interesting comment

I'll try and give my perspective as someone who has spent a couple hundred thousand dollars on Google Adwords and also gets a lot of organic traffic from them, and also does a lot of work on Apple Apps and Android Apps

*

you wrote:

TekMol 22 hours ago [–]

I think their idea is to combine that with signing the bundles, so a page from www.someserver.com can be served by anyone, aka Google. I guess this would mean Google can serve all content on the web.

There seems to be a strong urge in Google to cut the connection between then endpoints of the web and become the central authority. Make all traffic flow through their machines. Let no information arrive at the endpoints.

Right now, requests on the web are kind of p2p. A user requests a website, the publisher serves it any way they see fit. Directly via their servers or via a CDN of their choice.

Google seems to have a strong focus on ending this. Turning the web into Googlebook / AOLoogle.

I wonder why. Do they see their business model threatened on the open web? Or do they see a chance to increase their profit with a closed web?

@#$#$

@#$#$

OK, so think of Google as

THE STARTING POINT that everyone uses for the Internet

There are 3 critical things required

A) Trust

B) Efficiency

C) No other starting points

Now, Google's problem is that it knows (like all technology companies) that things change very fast in technology

look at Facebook having to buy Instagram and then WhatsApp and then having to GovernmentAttack TikTok and not being able to buy Snap chat

Google, on the other hand, has a very serious issue

A) Its main 'starting point competitors' are not 'buyable' or 'governmentAttackable'

It is Amazon for starting point for shopping, Facebook for starting point for 'people who think the Internet is Facebook', and then new competitors like completely different search methodologies and vertical search engines that are not even 'search engines' but take away Google position

B) It has been following a policy of 'shift everything to google properties'

This creates worsening search results

this leads to a loss of trust and efficiency

Efficiency is really hampered because now a typical search engine user is spending 60% of their time avoiding 2nd quality Google products, to find the remaining 40% and then sort through those to find THE BEST OPTION

C) See, the thing is, that to shift everyone on to Google properties, Google is not just throwing lots of Google results in search, it is also hiding the BEST of BREED services or plain stealing their data (like Yelp and Genius)

D) Trust is further eroded with so much spying and anti privacy

*

So Google is in this very unique situation where it has to do EXTREME measures

such as

try and shift everyone to AMP

try and shift everyone to Web Bundles

try and shift everyone to No Tracking Allowed except by Google

Think of someone who had the biggest trade port between two continents. And they make a TON of money

Then other ports started showing up

So what is their option?

buy up all the ports? what if that is not possible? What if peeping tom Facebook is not willing to sell their port?

then Google knows that sooner or later its port will become one of many and goodbye profits. Then they start pretending - only safe way to cross the ocean is on our ships. So EVERYONE can cross only on our ships

Very similar to FB being scared and starting Internet.org. Best way to eliminate competitors - control the ENTIRE internet and you choose who can be shown

by the way Tesla with StarLink and Amazon with Kuiper are also in position to do this (and not sure Tesla but Amazon definitely would)

turn the Internet into a Pay to Play zoo

*

There are lots of other signs too

1) Google click quality is down

2) amount of click fraud is going up

we see clicks coming from Google Servers. on customer service they admit a certain percentage are fake whenever we see fake clicks, they will still charge us and then (on their own) do a token refund

So we see $100 of fake clicks. 12 hours later there is a token $5 refund for fake clicks (they use some other term, will have to check what)

2) amount of organic traffic you get depends on who much you spend

3) If you spend less, then they start showing negative results in organic search to affect sales from people coming to you anyways

Google has already crossed the inflection point. Unless they can magically buy FB and/or Amazon they are basically dead

Just to elaborate on that

They are squeezing every little bit out, even using lots of wrong methods to do that, becoming less and less value

MANY verticals people have switched COMPLETELY to FB and other advertising

Google is still good for many, many areas. However, they are so saturated and so inefficient at giving you bang for the buck, it's crazy

Meanwhile, FB will let you do anything you want to FB users, provided you pay them enough

So for advertisers who don't mind such a set up, FB is 10 times better

* A lot of Google advertising money is INERTIA

It's unfortunate that TikTok is getting ticktocked. Otherwise it would have eaten massively into Google's earnings

Google also has very high costs to remaing 'default' in the web browsers

They're paying Apple $10 billion a year to be default search

Apple should give them a fitting gift for them stealing iPhone ideas and design for Android and build its own search engine. Google market cap would halve within a year if Apple did that

Re: Google proposed Web Bundles could threaten the Web as we know it

#83
post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could already use random URLs to serve ads and track, not sure how a bundle changes anything

Serving ads or doing tracking from random URLs doesn't work with extensions like uBlock Origin. In Firefox, uBO can block first party domains: https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues/issues/780 Also domain or URL blocking isn't the only thing you can do. You can also ban scripts from the page, or monkey patch JavaScript to change behavior that ad networks rely on. And you can also do cosmetic ads blocking, to h…

Again I don't get it. If a site wants to they can serve ads inline right now, without making client side requests to ad servers and ublock can't do anything about it. And first party cookies don't do any good for tracking so it doesn't matter if they come in the bundle. The ad trackers want to see where you go across multiple sites and there's no simple way to do that w/out 3rd party cookies (although you can use browser fingerprinting)

Re: Google proposed Web Bundles could threaten the Web as we know it

#84
post #80
post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Part of what excites me is that it decentralizes where assets have to come from. Yes it means Google can serve stuff, which will help some all operators at who knows exactly what cost of privacy. But what absolutely electrifies me is that I can share content with other people: even in an offline scenario I can give then a webbundle with a site if the site supports it, and the friend's browser can crytographically che…

We might not disagree much. IDK. I think there's something right about what you saying, but I seek clarification. I ask for your patience in thinking outloud with me (and my schizoposting); I'm someone who isn't as skilled as you are with computers. Despite my ignorance, I am a person deeply concerned with p2p-ness. I'm delighted to see your argument, and I appreciate your perhaps contrarian perspective here. Google…

> I'm not convinced that Google intends to maximize the automation and decentralization value of that kind of verification.

This seems like the core question/hypothesis you have as to why you might suspect this particular technology. If you have other specific concerns or fears or misuse, please let me know, but I have not identified anything else I can speak directly to. I dont understand Google nor their incentives, but I do understand the IETF drafts for this technology fairly well.

As to this specific question, the validation for Signed HTTP Exchanges (SXG) is the same validation that happens with any web page you would load via https://. This is not a perfect system, but one we have lived with, & SXG introduces no new complexities to it.

Post reply on HN