2 ms·
That's all totally fair. But in my original comment, I tried to center my observation on how Facebook has threatened the openness of the web with a proprietary
by cdata 10y ago
That's all totally fair. But in my original comment, I tried to center my observation on how Facebook has threatened the openness of the web with a proprietary alternative. Is it even possible for Google to deliver the same features without drawing a line around something? If so, how does that hypothetical thing differ from AMP?
- throwbsidbdk 10y agoProbably not. It's just the marketing that gets me. Google should say "use AMP, a Google alternative to fb instant articles!" Not "use amp it will make your site faster!" Which isn't true. Worse is that users will start associating the amp icon with fast sites, forcing everyone to start using amp or suffer lower conversions even if their normal site is just as fast or faster. This is because google forces amp sites to be fast, but doesn't punish slow sites in their other search results. Suddenly this amp thing starts to look less innocent. There is absolutely nothing stopping google from putting an icon next to fast sites that don't use amp. They used slow sites as an artificial crisis to market a fence they're building around the open web. Pretty dark for the "don't be evil" google. Facebook isn't doing anything better but at least their platform doesn't pollute search engine results
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]