3 ms·

This is a giant AMP scam. The next change will be that it will trick users into thinking they are on are on a real site like example.com but will instead be on

This is a giant AMP scam. The next change will be that it will trick users into thinking they are on are on a real site like example.com but will instead be on Google.com/example.com. But chrome will remove google.com just like http/s.

cpeterso 7y ago
Chrome on Android already hides the "google.com/amp" URL prefix for AMP URLs: https://blog.amp.dev/2018/01/09/improving-urls-for-amp-pages/ https://blog.amp.dev/2018/01/09/improving-urls-for-amp-pages...
- RobertRoberts 7y ago
  Thanks for the tip, I haven't used Chrome on my phone enough to notice this. This is really sad and dangerous for the web. I don't know why people aren't up in arms over this kind of devious behavior from Google. If Microsoft had pulled this in the late 90s early 2000s there would have been senate hearing and talks of breaking up their monopoly.
- floriferous 7y ago
  How scammy is this?!
v7p1Qbt1im 7y ago
Signed HTTP exchanges. It was actually the main complaint about AMP because it caused confusion among users. Technically it makes no difference wether the content is hosted by the author or any AMP CDN. The question is more a philosophical one. If it’s wrong that the URL doesn’t point to where files are “actually” stored. Or rather that the package delivery and package creator aren’t the same party. In my mind this hasn’t been the case for a long time now anyway. https://amp.dev/documentation/guides-and-tutorials/optimize-and-measure/signed-exchange/ https://amp.dev/documentation/guides-and-tutorials/optimize-...
- RobertRoberts 7y ago
  I would argue the issue is not technical at all, and this should not be part of the discussion. The issue is deceit and fraud. A browser should _never_ ever under any circumstances be able to display one companies domain differently than all others. Especially when it's their domain. Google.com, or any of Alphabet's domains, should not get special preference or treatment. And they certainly should not be trimmed out of an address for the benefit of Alphabet/Google to the detriment of all others.

cpeterso 7y ago

Chrome on Android already hides the "google.com/amp" URL prefix for AMP URLs: https://blog.amp.dev/2018/01/09/improving-urls-for-amp-pages/ https://blog.amp.dev/2018/01/09/improving-urls-for-amp-pages...

RobertRoberts 7y ago
Thanks for the tip, I haven't used Chrome on my phone enough to notice this. This is really sad and dangerous for the web. I don't know why people aren't up in arms over this kind of devious behavior from Google. If Microsoft had pulled this in the late 90s early 2000s there would have been senate hearing and talks of breaking up their monopoly.
floriferous 7y ago
How scammy is this?!

v7p1Qbt1im 7y ago

Signed HTTP exchanges. It was actually the main complaint about AMP because it caused confusion among users. Technically it makes no difference wether the content is hosted by the author or any AMP CDN. The question is more a philosophical one. If it’s wrong that the URL doesn’t point to where files are “actually” stored. Or rather that the package delivery and package creator aren’t the same party. In my mind this hasn’t been the case for a long time now anyway. https://amp.dev/documentation/guides-and-tutorials/optimize-and-measure/signed-exchange/ https://amp.dev/documentation/guides-and-tutorials/optimize-...

RobertRoberts 7y ago
I would argue the issue is not technical at all, and this should not be part of the discussion. The issue is deceit and fraud. A browser should _never_ ever under any circumstances be able to display one companies domain differently than all others. Especially when it's their domain. Google.com, or any of Alphabet's domains, should not get special preference or treatment. And they certainly should not be trimmed out of an address for the benefit of Alphabet/Google to the detriment of all others.