5 ms·

> AMP is a Google content proxying technology, and Google isn't generally understood to be a "sketchy site." The whole idea of AMP pages is sketchy by default,

> AMP is a Google content proxying technology, and Google isn't generally understood to be a "sketchy site." The whole idea of AMP pages is sketchy by default, as it's Google taking content from websites run by news media outlets and hosting it on their own servers so they have even more control over user-tracking. In the long term, this has the potential to further centralize the Internet, something the Internet was never meant to be. It's not that difficult to imagine a future where news media won't even host their own stuff anymore but instead outsource it all to Google. Very comparable to how Facebook has become the de-facto place for small businesses, with little to no IT knowledge, to have their own little web-presence. Which has certain advantages, but it's dangerous to belittle the very real disadvantages that kind of centralization of content will have in the long term.

shadowgovt 6y ago
Again, people concerned over this risk scenario should be switching to another browser regardless of what it does to the URL bar, right? I doubt we're going to find many users who's thought process runs "I'm really concerned about the long-term risk of Google building a dystopian information warehousing monoculture, but I was still going to use chrome. But now that they're changing the UI to, I assume, support their goals of building a dystopian information warehousing monoculture, it's A BRIDGE TOO FAR."
- freeflight 6y ago
  But switching to another browser does nothing to challenge AMP, as these changes are mostly pushed on the server-end while changes to the browser end, like this one, serve to further obfuscate this consolidation of Google's dominance on the web. In that context, it's a bit cynical to belittle the problem as you are doing there when this has been a very real issue for several years. As by now Google, Facebook, and Amazon control the vast majority of web traffic and have been doing so for years already [0]. This isn't some hypothetical scenario, it's something that's already very real. [0] https://staltz.com/the-web-began-dying-in-2014-heres-how.html https://staltz.com/the-web-began-dying-in-2014-heres-how.htm...
  - shadowgovt 6y ago
    Switching to another browser would let a little air out of the Google hegemony.
- mthoms 6y ago
  >people concerned over this risk scenario should be switching to another browser IMHO it's our duty as technical users to advocate for a more private, open and de-centralized web for everyone.... We should especially be doing it on behalf of the users who don't understand the long term implications of Google's (anti-) features. 'Just switch to another browser if you don't like it' is not a compelling argument.
  - shadowgovt 6y ago
    That's fine. In my humble opinion it's our duty as technical users to build a web that is both safe and usable by non-technical users. Sometimes we do that via improved privacy, more openness, and decentralization; sometimes we do it by centralization (lists of threat websites, certificate chains of trust baked into browser defaults), less privacy (expecting users to authenticate before making meaningful changes on sensitive data or people's money), and more closed architecture (ad spam countermeasures). Every tool in the toolbox to make the web better.

shadowgovt 6y ago

Again, people concerned over this risk scenario should be switching to another browser regardless of what it does to the URL bar, right? I doubt we're going to find many users who's thought process runs "I'm really concerned about the long-term risk of Google building a dystopian information warehousing monoculture, but I was still going to use chrome. But now that they're changing the UI to, I assume, support their goals of building a dystopian information warehousing monoculture, it's A BRIDGE TOO FAR."

freeflight 6y ago
But switching to another browser does nothing to challenge AMP, as these changes are mostly pushed on the server-end while changes to the browser end, like this one, serve to further obfuscate this consolidation of Google's dominance on the web. In that context, it's a bit cynical to belittle the problem as you are doing there when this has been a very real issue for several years. As by now Google, Facebook, and Amazon control the vast majority of web traffic and have been doing so for years already [0]. This isn't some hypothetical scenario, it's something that's already very real. [0] https://staltz.com/the-web-began-dying-in-2014-heres-how.html https://staltz.com/the-web-began-dying-in-2014-heres-how.htm...
- shadowgovt 6y ago
  Switching to another browser would let a little air out of the Google hegemony.
mthoms 6y ago
>people concerned over this risk scenario should be switching to another browser IMHO it's our duty as technical users to advocate for a more private, open and de-centralized web for everyone.... We should especially be doing it on behalf of the users who don't understand the long term implications of Google's (anti-) features. 'Just switch to another browser if you don't like it' is not a compelling argument.
- shadowgovt 6y ago
  That's fine. In my humble opinion it's our duty as technical users to build a web that is both safe and usable by non-technical users. Sometimes we do that via improved privacy, more openness, and decentralization; sometimes we do it by centralization (lists of threat websites, certificate chains of trust baked into browser defaults), less privacy (expecting users to authenticate before making meaningful changes on sensitive data or people's money), and more closed architecture (ad spam countermeasures). Every tool in the toolbox to make the web better.