5 ms·

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 U

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]

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]