5 ms·

This is changing the semantics of fetching a URL to be agnostic how it gets resolved. That’s disturbing and downright deceitful to the end user. Fifteen years

This is changing the semantics of fetching a URL to be agnostic how it gets resolved. That’s disturbing and downright deceitful to the end user. Fifteen years ago, if you asked me how google search would look, I would have responded “mostly the same, maybe they’ll have cool features like asking me which meaning of ‘converse’ i wanted: the shoe brand or the logical relation.” Instead, they’ve only subtracted functionality from the query engine (no more domain blocking), discouraged you from clicking through to sites by automatically scraping and rehosting them as “semantic” results, and now they’re trying to actively acquire 100% of the outbound traffic. Fuck google.

madeofpalk 6y ago
I don't think its deceitful - end-to-end, the site you're displaying was loaded somehow from domaina.com and it'll show domaina.com in the address bar.
- Aeolun 6y ago
  But it’s not loaded from their servers when I request it. So it shouldn’t show as such in the address bar. It blows my mind that anyone thinks that’s an acceptable idea.
  - madeofpalk 6y ago
    If a site is cached locally, it isn’t loaded from ‘their’ servers when you request it. Or maybe it’ll come from a CDN rather than origin. What’s shown in the URL bar has long been divorced from the HTTP request(s) that are made. > It blows my mind that anyone thinks that’s an acceptable idea It blows your mind that different people have difference opinions and values than you?
    - kempbellt 6y ago
      What is stored in your cache was loaded from their servers when you originally visited. Also, you can clear your cache at any time you choose to re-fetch the original content from the provider. Also, a provider uses a CDN at their discretion. Giving them the ability to invalidate or update cached records at times of their choosing. Or remove the CDN entirely if they choose to. This is Google using their weight to be anti-competitive and fall further down the anti-trust rabbit hole.
      - regularfry 6y ago
        A provider uses a CDN at their discretion, but it's totally legitimate to have a client-site cache as well. If I've got 20 users going through a squid proxy to get to the internet, that's something the provider has to live with. Not to diminish your core point, which I think is correct, but there are limits on what providers should be able to expect.
      - brokenmachine 6y ago
        I sort of agree with you, but robots.txt is a thing. I know it seems impossible but nobody has to use Google. Are there any copyright implications of amp? They're essentially republishing your property. Does the original publisher get their ad revenue?
    - Aeolun 6y ago
      > It blows your mind that different people have difference opinions and values than you? Given context and full knowledge of the issues involved? Yes, absolutely. For this particular issue anyway. > Or maybe it’ll come from a CDN rather than origin. That’s not a problem, since the URL and where it points to is still decided by the content owners.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - lern_too_spel 6y ago
    The snippet isn't loaded from their servers when you request it either. Do you think that's a bad idea as well?
    - o-__-o 6y ago
      yes.
      - lern_too_spel 6y ago
        Can you explain? Every time you search, do you want all of the publishers who appear on the results page to know that you were searching? Or is it that you don't want snippets to appear in the search results and just want a list of links without any evidence for why they might be good matches for your query?
        glenstein 6y ago
        This is a good example of the contradictions within AMP that limit it's usability as a technology. Unless AMP was really intended as a privacy tool this whole time and I just didn't know it, publishers probably "should" know the same amount they would get to know if you visited one of their actual pages, if you are visiting an AMP for the purpose of consuming their content rather than merely searching for it. But if that disrupts the smooth functioning of AMP, well, now we're just exhibiting an architectural shortcoming that's baked into AMPs philosophy of how to serve content. >Or is it that you don't want snippets to appear in the search results and just want a list of links without any evidence for why they might be good matches for your query? Is that how you feel about regular search results?
        lern_too_spel 6y ago
        Your comment does not make any sense to me. Are we talking about the same thing? A snippet is a summary of the page served by the search engine. The publisher currently does not have any idea that a particular user has seen a snippet, so publishers do "know the same amount" as they did before with AMP, which is nothing. > Is that how you feel about regular search results? Regular search results have snippets.

madeofpalk 6y ago

I don't think its deceitful - end-to-end, the site you're displaying was loaded somehow from domaina.com and it'll show domaina.com in the address bar.

Aeolun 6y ago
But it’s not loaded from their servers when I request it. So it shouldn’t show as such in the address bar. It blows my mind that anyone thinks that’s an acceptable idea.
- madeofpalk 6y ago
  If a site is cached locally, it isn’t loaded from ‘their’ servers when you request it. Or maybe it’ll come from a CDN rather than origin. What’s shown in the URL bar has long been divorced from the HTTP request(s) that are made. > It blows my mind that anyone thinks that’s an acceptable idea It blows your mind that different people have difference opinions and values than you?
  - kempbellt 6y ago
    What is stored in your cache was loaded from their servers when you originally visited. Also, you can clear your cache at any time you choose to re-fetch the original content from the provider. Also, a provider uses a CDN at their discretion. Giving them the ability to invalidate or update cached records at times of their choosing. Or remove the CDN entirely if they choose to. This is Google using their weight to be anti-competitive and fall further down the anti-trust rabbit hole.
    - regularfry 6y ago
      A provider uses a CDN at their discretion, but it's totally legitimate to have a client-site cache as well. If I've got 20 users going through a squid proxy to get to the internet, that's something the provider has to live with. Not to diminish your core point, which I think is correct, but there are limits on what providers should be able to expect.
    - brokenmachine 6y ago
      I sort of agree with you, but robots.txt is a thing. I know it seems impossible but nobody has to use Google. Are there any copyright implications of amp? They're essentially republishing your property. Does the original publisher get their ad revenue?
  - Aeolun 6y ago
    > It blows your mind that different people have difference opinions and values than you? Given context and full knowledge of the issues involved? Yes, absolutely. For this particular issue anyway. > Or maybe it’ll come from a CDN rather than origin. That’s not a problem, since the URL and where it points to is still decided by the content owners.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- lern_too_spel 6y ago
  The snippet isn't loaded from their servers when you request it either. Do you think that's a bad idea as well?
  - o-__-o 6y ago
    yes.
    - lern_too_spel 6y ago
      Can you explain? Every time you search, do you want all of the publishers who appear on the results page to know that you were searching? Or is it that you don't want snippets to appear in the search results and just want a list of links without any evidence for why they might be good matches for your query?
      - glenstein 6y ago
        This is a good example of the contradictions within AMP that limit it's usability as a technology. Unless AMP was really intended as a privacy tool this whole time and I just didn't know it, publishers probably "should" know the same amount they would get to know if you visited one of their actual pages, if you are visiting an AMP for the purpose of consuming their content rather than merely searching for it. But if that disrupts the smooth functioning of AMP, well, now we're just exhibiting an architectural shortcoming that's baked into AMPs philosophy of how to serve content. >Or is it that you don't want snippets to appear in the search results and just want a list of links without any evidence for why they might be good matches for your query? Is that how you feel about regular search results?
        lern_too_spel 6y ago
        Your comment does not make any sense to me. Are we talking about the same thing? A snippet is a summary of the page served by the search engine. The publisher currently does not have any idea that a particular user has seen a snippet, so publishers do "know the same amount" as they did before with AMP, which is nothing. > Is that how you feel about regular search results? Regular search results have snippets.