3 ms·

URLs represent and identify content,controling them means you control content. In the short term these changes mean little but in the long term this will benefi

URLs represent and identify content,controling them means you control content. In the short term these changes mean little but in the long term this will benefit google immensely. Google just loves slippery slopes. Identity and payment are extremely important to any ordered system of social interaction. More than content itself,controlling them helps one control everything else. I am trying hard to avoid believing conspiracy theoris about Google. Maybe a legal requirement for intetnet standards compliance makes sense?

privateSFacct 7y ago
The focus of this change is to improve the identification of content. This coupled with payment has been subject lots of fraud where users misled about the owner of a website. google-payments-secure.via.net is not a google payment website despite the google in the domain name. The key part that signifies the ownership / identify of the person hosting the site is the END of the domain, the google.com part. That is the owner of the web property, not whatever appears before that.
- reaperducer 7y ago
  Or Google can stop cramming things in the top of the window and let us see the entire URL.
- hermanradtke 7y ago
  There are other ways to do this that do not hide parts of the URL. Educating people should not hide information, but instead present information in a way that is more understandable. I think the Chrone team is making URLs harder to understand.
- badrabbit 7y ago
  That's what google uses as an argument too and I am too familiar with the problem. The problem here is that Google is in control of the solution and the solution is designed by them without consulting everyone else and in a way that would be advantageous to their long term dominance and prosperity. I don't trust google and they certainly don't have my consent to shape the way I and the society I live in interact with each other. I will say it a million times if needed. I do not trust google. Period. They ask forgiveness instead of permission and they love slipperly slops and bait-and-switch psychology tricks to get their way.
jammygit 7y ago
Legally requiring internet standards compliance would help in some ways, but imagine the hurdle that creates for future startups who have something different and maybe better in mind
- zzo38computer 7y ago
  Well, claiming that it is compliant even though it isn't, is false advertising, so that is how it should be applied, rather than requiring compliance even for the thing that isn't supposed to be. They already require warning labels on some stuff, so it should be required that warning label too, then, maybe.
- badrabbit 7y ago
  They can propose the change as an internet standard like everyone else before lettig users interact with that product? Hurdle? Yes,but the cost-benefit analysis seems obvious here.
magicalist 7y ago
> Maybe a legal requirement for intetnet standards compliance makes sense? there is no internet standard for how a URL should be displayed in a browser.
jedimastert 7y ago
> Google just loves slippery slopes. So, you fully admit to making a slippery slope argument?
- maxk42 7y ago
  "Slippery slope arguments are a falacy" is, as an argument, a fallacy.

privateSFacct 7y ago

The focus of this change is to improve the identification of content. This coupled with payment has been subject lots of fraud where users misled about the owner of a website. google-payments-secure.via.net is not a google payment website despite the google in the domain name. The key part that signifies the ownership / identify of the person hosting the site is the END of the domain, the google.com part. That is the owner of the web property, not whatever appears before that.

reaperducer 7y ago
Or Google can stop cramming things in the top of the window and let us see the entire URL.
hermanradtke 7y ago
There are other ways to do this that do not hide parts of the URL. Educating people should not hide information, but instead present information in a way that is more understandable. I think the Chrone team is making URLs harder to understand.
badrabbit 7y ago
That's what google uses as an argument too and I am too familiar with the problem. The problem here is that Google is in control of the solution and the solution is designed by them without consulting everyone else and in a way that would be advantageous to their long term dominance and prosperity. I don't trust google and they certainly don't have my consent to shape the way I and the society I live in interact with each other. I will say it a million times if needed. I do not trust google. Period. They ask forgiveness instead of permission and they love slipperly slops and bait-and-switch psychology tricks to get their way.

jammygit 7y ago

Legally requiring internet standards compliance would help in some ways, but imagine the hurdle that creates for future startups who have something different and maybe better in mind

zzo38computer 7y ago
Well, claiming that it is compliant even though it isn't, is false advertising, so that is how it should be applied, rather than requiring compliance even for the thing that isn't supposed to be. They already require warning labels on some stuff, so it should be required that warning label too, then, maybe.
badrabbit 7y ago
They can propose the change as an internet standard like everyone else before lettig users interact with that product? Hurdle? Yes,but the cost-benefit analysis seems obvious here.

magicalist 7y ago

> Maybe a legal requirement for intetnet standards compliance makes sense? there is no internet standard for how a URL should be displayed in a browser.

jedimastert 7y ago

> Google just loves slippery slopes. So, you fully admit to making a slippery slope argument?

maxk42 7y ago
"Slippery slope arguments are a falacy" is, as an argument, a fallacy.