5 ms·

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

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
        If it weren't that big a deal, Google, Bing, Baidu, etc. wouldn't go through the hassle of setting up the infrastructure to make instant loading with AMP possible. The competitors (proprietary non-web systems like Facebook Instant Articles and Apple News) are instant. If AMP weren't also instant, it wouldn't have a point.
        JohnFen 7y ago
        > If it weren't that big a deal, Google, Bing, Baidu, etc. wouldn't go through the hassle of setting up the infrastructure to make instant loading with AMP possible. Sure they would. Google wants it because it increases Google's control of the web. Google's competitors want it because they don't want Google's control of the web to be increased.
        bitpush 7y ago
        No company controls the web. Not Google, Not Facebook, Not Apple. I dont understand where you're getting the idea that Google controls the web. Nobody is stopping anyone from publishing anything they want. Dont like Google? Talk about that on HN. The real walled gardens are the apps ecosystem where there is a clear gatekeeper.
        JohnFen 7y ago

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
        If it weren't that big a deal, Google, Bing, Baidu, etc. wouldn't go through the hassle of setting up the infrastructure to make instant loading with AMP possible. The competitors (proprietary non-web systems like Facebook Instant Articles and Apple News) are instant. If AMP weren't also instant, it wouldn't have a point.
        JohnFen 7y ago
        > If it weren't that big a deal, Google, Bing, Baidu, etc. wouldn't go through the hassle of setting up the infrastructure to make instant loading with AMP possible. Sure they would. Google wants it because it increases Google's control of the web. Google's competitors want it because they don't want Google's control of the web to be increased.
        bitpush 7y ago
        No company controls the web. Not Google, Not Facebook, Not Apple. I dont understand where you're getting the idea that Google controls the web. Nobody is stopping anyone from publishing anything they want. Dont like Google? Talk about that on HN. The real walled gardens are the apps ecosystem where there is a clear gatekeeper.
        JohnFen 7y ago