4 ms·

I understand the objections to Google's actions--this is clearly a dick move which is terrible for both users and content creators--but I'm not understanding th

I understand the objections to Google's actions--this is clearly a dick move which is terrible for both users and content creators--but I'm not understanding the AMP hate here. As a user, AMP is great. AMP is a better implementation of the open web than HTML is. It's a (usually) self-contained document that isn't tightly coupled to the server it came from. You can download an AMP document, render it, attach it to an email to a friend, etc., without having to log in or get tracked. Unfortunately AMP is adding ad capabilities, but at least AMP allows you to strip those out fairly trivially. As a website, if you want your users tightly coupled to your server, just don't implement AMP? You literally went through non-negligible effort to implement a feature and now you're surprised and angry that it works the way you implemented it. AMP was always a bad idea if you wanted users to be dependent on your website for your content--this has only made it a slightly worse idea. And by the way, if all you want is credit for your content, it's trivial to add a linked byline to the top of your AMP. I'm not defending Google here. They're an amoral corporation with too much power and shouldn't be used, period. But AMP is fine. EDIT: I can only assume the silent down-voters are people who implemented AMP and are whining that what they implemented works. ;P

dane-pgp 6y ago
The silent down-voters are more likely site owners who feel they are being coerced into using AMP in order to compete in Google's search rankings, or users who feel they are being forced to visit AMP sites (which have various usability or privacy concerns) due to these site owners being coerced. (For what it's worth, I up-voted you).
- kerkeslager 6y ago
  Sure--but that's the result of society giving too much power to Google, not the result of AMP.
dastx 6y ago
> AMP is a better implementation of the open web than HTML is. Except the results of AMP can be done without AMP. It just requires site owners to not put a bunch of crap on the site. Something that AMP requires you to do. > You can download an AMP document, render it, etc., without having to log in or get tracked Except for the fact that now only Google tracks you. Also, doable without AMP. The hate from many isn't about being a website owner. It's about being a website user. When I click on a link of a website, I expect to go to that website. Not stay on Google's site.
- kerkeslager 6y ago
  > Except the results of AMP can be done without AMP. It just requires site owners to not put a bunch of crap on the site. Something that AMP requires you to do. Sure, you can build self-contained HTML pages, but you don't have any way of indicating to browsers or search engines that what you've created can be consumed in that way. > The hate from many isn't about being a website owner. It's about being a website user. When I click on a link of a website, I expect to go to that website. Not stay on Google's site. That's a great objection to Google not linking to the original site. It's not an objection to AMP. Nothing about AMP prevents Google from linking to the original site.

dane-pgp 6y ago

The silent down-voters are more likely site owners who feel they are being coerced into using AMP in order to compete in Google's search rankings, or users who feel they are being forced to visit AMP sites (which have various usability or privacy concerns) due to these site owners being coerced. (For what it's worth, I up-voted you).

kerkeslager 6y ago
Sure--but that's the result of society giving too much power to Google, not the result of AMP.

dastx 6y ago

> AMP is a better implementation of the open web than HTML is. Except the results of AMP can be done without AMP. It just requires site owners to not put a bunch of crap on the site. Something that AMP requires you to do. > You can download an AMP document, render it, etc., without having to log in or get tracked Except for the fact that now only Google tracks you. Also, doable without AMP. The hate from many isn't about being a website owner. It's about being a website user. When I click on a link of a website, I expect to go to that website. Not stay on Google's site.

kerkeslager 6y ago
> Except the results of AMP can be done without AMP. It just requires site owners to not put a bunch of crap on the site. Something that AMP requires you to do. Sure, you can build self-contained HTML pages, but you don't have any way of indicating to browsers or search engines that what you've created can be consumed in that way. > The hate from many isn't about being a website owner. It's about being a website user. When I click on a link of a website, I expect to go to that website. Not stay on Google's site. That's a great objection to Google not linking to the original site. It's not an objection to AMP. Nothing about AMP prevents Google from linking to the original site.