7 ms·

Cake or death: AMP and the worrying power dynamics of the web

131 points by Vinnl 7y ago

Digit-Al 7y ago
Why is there a "Share on Google+" link? Surely Google+ is now dead.
- javagram 7y ago
  seems like it still works to share on G Suite Google+, which is not dead. Probably just legacy though...
- onion2k 7y ago
  Just for a laugh I clicked the button, and the post is now shared on my Google+ page. Google+ is not as dead as has been reported.
  - tyfon 7y ago
    It is still available for google apps and for brand accounts I think but not free gmail accounts.
rgoulter 7y ago
I can agree with the author's point that when technology like Google's AMP incentivizes the wrong things by promoting what's quick over what's slow/accurate. I can agree with many of the author's criticisms of AMP. But I don't quite understand the author's concern about Google's push for AMP being a "monopolistic land grab" at the same time as the author's disgust that Google doesn't censor disreputable websites. AMP is a technical solution to require technically-not-terrible sites; a reputability service is also a technical solution, but for a non-technical problem of terrible sites. Why is "cake or death" terrible for the former but not the latter? Especially since it seems like it'd be really hard to have a neutral reliability check that everyone could trust. I feel there's a tension between "decentralised and open", and "centralised and curated". (You could have a walled garden as part of a larger decentralised web without needing control over others, though).
- simion314 7y ago
  I think the author refers to curation not censorship, Google is trying to get the content from the publication that do actual curation and all the other content and show you what an algorithm thinks will make them more money.
- JohnFen 7y ago
  > AMP is a technical solution to require technically-not-terrible sites AMP is a technical solution to a non-technical problem. And, in my opinion, that technical solution is worse than the non-technical problem.
  - lern_too_spel 7y ago
    > a non-technical problem In what way is safely prerendering third party pages not a technical problem?
    - JohnFen 7y ago
      The nontechnical problem is the prevalence of bad website design. AMP is not needed in order to have performant websites. The case Google makes for AMP is "web designers suck".
      - lern_too_spel 7y ago
        > AMP is not needed in order to have performant websites. AMP is needed in order to have instantly loading websites. You don't seem to understand what AMP is for.
        JohnFen 7y ago
        True, but I really don't think that saving 1 or 2 10ths of a second is that big of a deal.
        lern_too_spel 7y ago
pjc50 7y ago
So there's about four things going on here which are somewhat conflated, but I definitely agree with the approach of analysing this by power dynamics. 1) Link snippets. In the old days, there was syndicated news: org A could pay org B for the right to print bits of B's coverage. From this point of view, Google search looks like a syndication that they've not opted into and isn't paying. Of course, when they tried fighting back (some organisations in Spain and Germany, I think), they got removed from search results and ended up worse off. This is the view driving the "link tax" proposals in the EU. 2) "Snippets" that are in fact the whole article: both AMP and the proposed "web packages". In this case, Google end up publishing the whole article from their domain. The paper gets .. what exactly? 3) The bad recommendation problem: "This equates a responsible, expensively produced, extensively researched, professional newsgatherer with some guy who thinks the earth is flat for no reason other than that it ‘kinda feels right’." See also Youtube's role in promoting flat earth, anti-vax, neo-nazi, etc viewpoints. 4) AMP etc. vs paywalls: "In AMP, the support for paywalls is based on a recommendation that the premium content be included in the source of the page regardless of the user’s authorisation state."
- ec109685 7y ago
  For #2, the publisher gets paid for all the ads on the amp page: https://support.google.com/admanager/answer/6352089?hl=en https://support.google.com/admanager/answer/6352089?hl=en
BlueTemplar 7y ago
I wonder why the author considers Facebook to be a lost cause, but not Google?
- WorldMaker 7y ago
  Anecdotally, a lot more Facebook employees I've interacted with understand they've been at least complicit with evil and want to do better. That's at least a good Step 1. On the other side I feel like there are far too many Googlers that have drank the vile tautology Kool-Aid that because the unofficial motto is still supposed to be "Do No Evil" that what Google is doing cannot be evil, because it is Google doing it. They haven't even reached Step 1 yet.
  - BlueTemplar 7y ago
    Considering all the recent scandals like Maven and Dragonfly, I don't know what more they need ?!
FreeHugs 7y ago
We developers and startup founders can vote with our feet. If we want to keep a free open web or turn it into a Google owned publishing platform. If we want to keep it open, we can simply keep building great websites. Real websites. Without "amp" and "portals". Example: HN itself. No amp, much joy! Or take a hint from Google themselves. They don't offer an amp version of their search results. And will never allow anybody to embed their site.
- matz1 7y ago
  Yes that's why I am voting with my feet by implementing amp in my site.
- Angostura 7y ago
  As users we can complain to sites too. I hate amp sites.
  - JohnFen 7y ago
    I don't bother to complain. I just stop going to those sites altogether.
- getpolarized 7y ago
  We didn't vote with our feet regarding Facebook. Every startup founder defected and surrendered to Facebook in favor of more pageviews. It's like the prisoners dilemma only with startups and instead of going to prison you have to use Facebook.
  - JohnFen 7y ago
    > We didn't vote with our feet regarding Facebook. Some of us did.
    - AJ007 7y ago
      The visibility of non paid posts on Facebook is a fraction of what it used to be. When it was high, it made sense that companies built their businesses around it. Those companies, at best, are hobbling along, like Zynga or Buzzfeed, or at worst, dead, like most of them. What matters a lot right now is something else: the direct timeline accurate and somewhat algorithm free, communication channels companies have with their customers (and you have with your friends.) That is email and messaging. We should be paying a lot closer attention and giving greater caution to Gmail, Facebook Messenger and WhatsApp. Particularly Gmail.
yoodenvranx 7y ago
Has anyone noticed that since a few weeks mobile Chrome shows a really curious behavior? On a normal webpage: - I scroll down -> address bar is hidden. - I scroll up a bit and then down again -> address bar is shown On any AMP page: - I scroll down a bit -> address bar is hidden - and then I can scroll in any direction I want and the address bar never appears unless I scroll to the very top For me that feels like Google wants to keep me inside the AMP page and makes it harder to navigate to a normal page.
- jefftk 7y ago
  I just tested an AMP page in mobile Chrome, and I'm not seeing the behavior you described. Once I scroll up again, the address bar reappears. Example: https://photos.app.goo.gl/a8A3WukpMiFPMBaNA https://photos.app.goo.gl/a8A3WukpMiFPMBaNA (Disclosure: I work for Google)
  - loriverkutya 7y ago
    I was really expecting more then a “Works on my machine” from a google employee ;)
    - AJ007 7y ago
      I wonder what they are testing with considering how dysfunctional basic stuff like YouTube pages are on Safari mobile.
      - bitpush 7y ago
        I think you're suggesting Safari on iOS is broken.
  - yoodenvranx 7y ago
    Thx for the reply! I did some more investigation and I can reproduce it the following way: - go to https://news.google.com https://news.google.com and scroll down until the address bar is hidden - click on any of the AMP links - the AMP links loads and the address bar is still hidden - scroll around the page. The address bar only re-appears if I scroll to the very top, otherwise it stays hidden I use Chrome 74.0.3729.157 on Android 7
tonetheman 7y ago
The name of the article for the win... Izzard rules.

131 points by Vinnl 7y ago

Digit-Al 7y ago

Why is there a "Share on Google+" link? Surely Google+ is now dead.

javagram 7y ago
seems like it still works to share on G Suite Google+, which is not dead. Probably just legacy though...
onion2k 7y ago
Just for a laugh I clicked the button, and the post is now shared on my Google+ page. Google+ is not as dead as has been reported.
- tyfon 7y ago
  It is still available for google apps and for brand accounts I think but not free gmail accounts.

rgoulter 7y ago

I can agree with the author's point that when technology like Google's AMP incentivizes the wrong things by promoting what's quick over what's slow/accurate. I can agree with many of the author's criticisms of AMP. But I don't quite understand the author's concern about Google's push for AMP being a "monopolistic land grab" at the same time as the author's disgust that Google doesn't censor disreputable websites. AMP is a technical solution to require technically-not-terrible sites; a reputability service is also a technical solution, but for a non-technical problem of terrible sites. Why is "cake or death" terrible for the former but not the latter? Especially since it seems like it'd be really hard to have a neutral reliability check that everyone could trust. I feel there's a tension between "decentralised and open", and "centralised and curated". (You could have a walled garden as part of a larger decentralised web without needing control over others, though).

simion314 7y ago
I think the author refers to curation not censorship, Google is trying to get the content from the publication that do actual curation and all the other content and show you what an algorithm thinks will make them more money.
JohnFen 7y ago
> AMP is a technical solution to require technically-not-terrible sites AMP is a technical solution to a non-technical problem. And, in my opinion, that technical solution is worse than the non-technical problem.
- lern_too_spel 7y ago
  > a non-technical problem In what way is safely prerendering third party pages not a technical problem?
  - JohnFen 7y ago
    The nontechnical problem is the prevalence of bad website design. AMP is not needed in order to have performant websites. The case Google makes for AMP is "web designers suck".
    - lern_too_spel 7y ago
      > AMP is not needed in order to have performant websites. AMP is needed in order to have instantly loading websites. You don't seem to understand what AMP is for.
      - JohnFen 7y ago
        True, but I really don't think that saving 1 or 2 10ths of a second is that big of a deal.
        lern_too_spel 7y ago

pjc50 7y ago

So there's about four things going on here which are somewhat conflated, but I definitely agree with the approach of analysing this by power dynamics. 1) Link snippets. In the old days, there was syndicated news: org A could pay org B for the right to print bits of B's coverage. From this point of view, Google search looks like a syndication that they've not opted into and isn't paying. Of course, when they tried fighting back (some organisations in Spain and Germany, I think), they got removed from search results and ended up worse off. This is the view driving the "link tax" proposals in the EU. 2) "Snippets" that are in fact the whole article: both AMP and the proposed "web packages". In this case, Google end up publishing the whole article from their domain. The paper gets .. what exactly? 3) The bad recommendation problem: "This equates a responsible, expensively produced, extensively researched, professional newsgatherer with some guy who thinks the earth is flat for no reason other than that it ‘kinda feels right’." See also Youtube's role in promoting flat earth, anti-vax, neo-nazi, etc viewpoints. 4) AMP etc. vs paywalls: "In AMP, the support for paywalls is based on a recommendation that the premium content be included in the source of the page regardless of the user’s authorisation state."

ec109685 7y ago
For #2, the publisher gets paid for all the ads on the amp page: https://support.google.com/admanager/answer/6352089?hl=en https://support.google.com/admanager/answer/6352089?hl=en

BlueTemplar 7y ago

I wonder why the author considers Facebook to be a lost cause, but not Google?

WorldMaker 7y ago
Anecdotally, a lot more Facebook employees I've interacted with understand they've been at least complicit with evil and want to do better. That's at least a good Step 1. On the other side I feel like there are far too many Googlers that have drank the vile tautology Kool-Aid that because the unofficial motto is still supposed to be "Do No Evil" that what Google is doing cannot be evil, because it is Google doing it. They haven't even reached Step 1 yet.
- BlueTemplar 7y ago
  Considering all the recent scandals like Maven and Dragonfly, I don't know what more they need ?!

FreeHugs 7y ago

We developers and startup founders can vote with our feet. If we want to keep a free open web or turn it into a Google owned publishing platform. If we want to keep it open, we can simply keep building great websites. Real websites. Without "amp" and "portals". Example: HN itself. No amp, much joy! Or take a hint from Google themselves. They don't offer an amp version of their search results. And will never allow anybody to embed their site.

matz1 7y ago
Yes that's why I am voting with my feet by implementing amp in my site.
Angostura 7y ago
As users we can complain to sites too. I hate amp sites.
- JohnFen 7y ago
  I don't bother to complain. I just stop going to those sites altogether.
getpolarized 7y ago
We didn't vote with our feet regarding Facebook. Every startup founder defected and surrendered to Facebook in favor of more pageviews. It's like the prisoners dilemma only with startups and instead of going to prison you have to use Facebook.
- JohnFen 7y ago
  > We didn't vote with our feet regarding Facebook. Some of us did.
  - AJ007 7y ago
    The visibility of non paid posts on Facebook is a fraction of what it used to be. When it was high, it made sense that companies built their businesses around it. Those companies, at best, are hobbling along, like Zynga or Buzzfeed, or at worst, dead, like most of them. What matters a lot right now is something else: the direct timeline accurate and somewhat algorithm free, communication channels companies have with their customers (and you have with your friends.) That is email and messaging. We should be paying a lot closer attention and giving greater caution to Gmail, Facebook Messenger and WhatsApp. Particularly Gmail.

yoodenvranx 7y ago

Has anyone noticed that since a few weeks mobile Chrome shows a really curious behavior? On a normal webpage: - I scroll down -> address bar is hidden. - I scroll up a bit and then down again -> address bar is shown On any AMP page: - I scroll down a bit -> address bar is hidden - and then I can scroll in any direction I want and the address bar never appears unless I scroll to the very top For me that feels like Google wants to keep me inside the AMP page and makes it harder to navigate to a normal page.

jefftk 7y ago
I just tested an AMP page in mobile Chrome, and I'm not seeing the behavior you described. Once I scroll up again, the address bar reappears. Example: https://photos.app.goo.gl/a8A3WukpMiFPMBaNA https://photos.app.goo.gl/a8A3WukpMiFPMBaNA (Disclosure: I work for Google)
- loriverkutya 7y ago
  I was really expecting more then a “Works on my machine” from a google employee ;)
  - AJ007 7y ago
    I wonder what they are testing with considering how dysfunctional basic stuff like YouTube pages are on Safari mobile.
    - bitpush 7y ago
      I think you're suggesting Safari on iOS is broken.
- yoodenvranx 7y ago
  Thx for the reply! I did some more investigation and I can reproduce it the following way: - go to https://news.google.com https://news.google.com and scroll down until the address bar is hidden - click on any of the AMP links - the AMP links loads and the address bar is still hidden - scroll around the page. The address bar only re-appears if I scroll to the very top, otherwise it stays hidden I use Chrome 74.0.3729.157 on Android 7

tonetheman 7y ago

The name of the article for the win... Izzard rules.