6 ms·
The reason it has to be prefetched from not-you is to protect the users privacy. Until they click a link it is not considered acceptable to leak their search to
by zackbloom 7y ago
The reason it has to be prefetched from not-you is to protect the users privacy. Until they click a link it is not considered acceptable to leak their search to the potential destination. Links have to be fetched from a third-party who the search engine trusts not to share the data, that at the moment is Google but will hopefully expand.
- Tepix 7y ago„Considered acceptable“ by whom? Why should the user‘s privacy be protected toward the content provider instead of the search provider? The search provider already knows more about me.
- codedokode 7y agoGoogle already can do this by preloading a cached page from its own domain. So this specification is unnecessary. I think the real reason is that Google wants to build a walled garden, but doesn't want the walls to be noticeable. Even with AMP, they display a header that looks like a browser's address bar [1] Also, on that page Google admits that it uses AMP Viewer to collect information about users: > Data collection by Google is governed by Google’s privacy policy. Which is probably their real motication for creating AMP. [1] https://developers.google.com/search/docs/guides/about-amp https://developers.google.com/search/docs/guides/about-amp
- pvorb 7y agoExactly: Google built a walled garden and now replaces the fence by glass, because people don't like the view from inside their cage. The worst thing is, that it'll get away with it.
- pxtail 7y ago> I think the real reason is that Google wants to build a walled garden Exactly, this is the real reason why this abomination came into existence - all of this is masked as work for greater good all for those poor kids with limited network speed. As end effect everyone will suffer - user will never leave google ecosystem, he will remain on search page without even knowing about it, creator will lose control over his own content
- Ajedi32 7y ago> Google already can do this by preloading a cached page from its own domain. That's what AMP already did. This spec is better because it ensures publishers retain control over their own content, and doesn't confuse users by showing "www.google.com" in the URL bar for content that didn't originate from Google.
- grrowl 7y agoI copy your post, but make it available further up the thread. Even though I sync your comment’s edits to mine several times a day, I also control Hacker News so I get them to display your username in place of mine, as to not confuse readers. Page and DNS prefetching exists, HTML exists, why not just link to the page on the original domain?
- codedokode 7y agoPublisher might want to display their URL in the address bar. But as a user I want to see the actual URL, not what Google or publisher want to show me. I don't want to see "example.com" in the address bar while I am actually connected to Google via a TLS connection signed by Google's key and my IP address is collected according to Google's privacy policy. What confuses users is Google displaying a fake address bar [1] or browser displaying the wrong URL. [1] https://developers.google.com/search/docs/guides/images/amp07-signed-exchange.png https://developers.google.com/search/docs/guides/images/amp0...
- Ajedi32 7y agoThe URL you see _is_ the actual URL. It doesn't matter where the content was initially loaded from because the page is signed by the publisher's private key (the publisher has full control over the page contents, Google can't alter it).
- codedokode 7y agoThe content is served from Google's servers according to Google's (not publisher's) privacy policy. While Google cannot alter the content, it sees the unencrypted HTTP request. I don't want neither Google nor publisher to control contents of my address bar.
- lucb1e 7y agoEdit: I completely misread the comment, but can't delete it anymore a minute later because someone already commented. So oops.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]