3 ms·
I've actually removed that second question before I noticed your answer, because I knew you would then skip over the first one. Feel free to address the main po
by dessant 7y ago
I've actually removed that second question before I noticed your answer, because I knew you would then skip over the first one. Feel free to address the main point I was making in all my posts in this thread, whenever you feel ready.
> So if your metric is
Google being pinged obviously isn't my main metric, as you can see from all my posts in our discussion. My main concern is that publishers will be forced to use specific publishing mechanisms (AMP, Signed Exchanges) to appear at the top of Google Search results. That loss of control puts publishers in a vulnerable position, and hurts innovation across the web.
> Then yes, absolutely, because nothing changes!
Everything changes. Google's influence and control won't end at the moment the user navigates away to a top result on Google Search.
- joshuamorton 7y agoI updated the prior post, but to be a bit more concrete, what differentiates AMP signed exchanges from, say, HTTPS?
- jhasse 7y agoGoogle could serve an older version without the user knowing.
- joshuamorton 7y agoThe signed exchanges protocol requires that the content be signed with a key with a short expiry date (< 1 week), sites are free to make it shorter. In extreme cases, the providing site could sign with an expiry of < 1 day or even something like 1 hour. And iiuc, sites are still free to revoke their certs. So this is actually probably more secure compared to something like https in that regard. [0]: https://github.com/WICG/webpackage/blob/6cc3237b36c2f9ce75343d1ad39d7f138f07c87f/draft-yasskin-http-origin-signed-responses.md https://github.com/WICG/webpackage/blob/6cc3237b36c2f9ce7534...