4 ms·
May be you are right, I'll have to meditate on that one. Edit: It's a complicated situation. Google offers a great carrot/stick to get people to adopt AMP. Pu
by akras14 9y ago
May be you are right, I'll have to meditate on that one.
Edit:
It's a complicated situation. Google offers a great carrot/stick to get people to adopt AMP. Publishers adopt it. Other platforms start using it. A lot of users like this format. Some users hate it and the idea of it.
As I've mentioned before, I do think that Twitter was trying to do the right thing for their users given the situation we are in.
It would be nice to have "request Desktop version" option for AMP, but not sure if it's too much to ask.
- gregable 9y agoIf the publisher provides both AMP and non-AMP versions of a document, it is possible to write a browser extension that will redirect to the non-AMP URL when provided. You would want to look for <html amp> to detect this case, and then <link rel=canonical> to determine the possible non-AMP URL. If that URL differs from the current URL, redirect to it. If you personally want a per-user option here to override the publisher, this seems like the way to go, but there is some similarity to ad-blocking here.
- akras14 9y agoYes, except it's not so easy to do in Safari on iOS.