6 ms·

Things like AMP and WebBundles clearly appear like a self-interested attack on the open web by Google, all the while making reasonable-sounding noises about eff

Things like AMP and WebBundles clearly appear like a self-interested attack on the open web by Google, all the while making reasonable-sounding noises about efficiency and speed. With the inexorable rise of ad-blockers, allowing 'User Agents' to be true agents of the user is a threat to Google's business model, and any significant engineering and standards efforts by that company can and should be evaluated by assuming the driver is not web altruism, but ferocious defence of their business model. Interesting to see Google accounts drop in to misdirect on the essence of the argument outlined in the article: the essence being that bundles create private namespaces for URLS, which is an attack on the agency of a user in consuming content. It should be unsurprising that Google wants to blackbox websites. If these kinds of initiatives succeed the philosophical debate around whether a user has the right to filter content running on their machine becomes moot, because technically they won't be able to. The bottom line is: Google's business model is threatened by users being able to control the content they consume. Splitting hairs on how bad WebBundles will be in practice wilfully or otherwise misses this larger, more important point. Operating in an Australian context, it's exasperating arguing forcefully for Google and Facebook [1] in regards to the new shakedown laws outlined brilliantly by Stratechery [2], all the while knowing there are very real criticisms that should be discussed, such as AMP and WebBundles. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24186376 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24186376 [2] https://stratechery.com/2020/australias-news-media-bargaining-code-breaking-down-the-code-australias-fake-news/ https://stratechery.com/2020/australias-news-media-bargainin...

apostacy 6y ago
They have wanted to kill the URL for a long time. The mask often slips. There have been so many half baked attempts trotted out, and nobody liked them. every browser has tried de-emphasizing the URL, and Chrome even tried completely eliminating it.[1] They hate that people can deep link into their platforms and share these links with each other, untracked. They want to have complete control of the experience. They are slowly migrating us to a network of crummy walled gardens. If it was up to them, they would just have you download a giant .exe file and require that you run with admin privileges. The only protections that the likes of Google would offer you is that the different pieces of opaque adware clogging up your device not interfere with each other, and not to so destabilize your device that you can't be advertised to. In other words, Android. And they will use every bit of leverage they have to continue to corral us from the open pastures of the web into their nightmarish silos. A powerful bulwark against this was Mozilla. But their #1 priority now is to validate and amplify Google's vision of the web. Rest assured, now matter how awful and user-hostile webundles turn out to be, Mozilla will be there, offering an inferior implementation. Firefox got popular because they completely rejected Microsoft's vision of the web. They didn't try to implement Microsoft's terrible ideas, because they were user hostile and not worth implementing. [1]: https://www.pcworld.com/article/2362123/google-chromes-origin-chip-experimental-feature-appears-to-be-on-hold.html https://www.pcworld.com/article/2362123/google-chromes-origi... [2]: https://villing.com/articles/facebook-is-the-new-aol/ https://villing.com/articles/facebook-is-the-new-aol/
- rektide 6y ago
  A bundle transparently "expands" into the url'ed resources in it. URLs are not going anywhere. I'm one of the sometimes shrill voices when the url is getting de-emphasized but I really don't feel like webbundles are part of that threat. What is different is that a server no longer has to be online serving content for folks to be able to get content. 3rd parties being able to serve content is a very different world indeed, & I have reservations about folks no longer having to run their own big world facing services & becoming reliant upon 3rd party serving. But those concerns are far outweighed by how excellent it will be being able to share web content with friends while offline together, being able to easily transfer webapps among users, &c.
cycloptic 6y ago
I just don't get this criticism, nothing in web bundles appears to be particularly new, nor would it make it much easier to create private javascript namespaces. Years ago I built web apps that were packaged as zip files, which then were decompressed in a worker and then had javascript loaded from them. If you want to do this right now, it's not hard.
- justsee 6y ago
  The blog author summarises the core issue here [1]. WebBundles are an attack on user agency: the right to filter content on the open web. Google putting forward a proposal which directly attacks the ability of general-purpose blockers to operate is not a case of "nothing to see here, I did something I think approximates this situation years back". The moral case of "blocking = theft" clearly isn't getting political traction so an alternative or accompaniment is pushing standards to destroy the rights of user agency. Keep in mind Gorhill's statement on justifying uBlock Origin [2]: "That said, it's important to note that using a blocker is NOT theft. Don't fall for this creepy idea. The ultimate logical consequence of blocking = theft is the criminalisation of the inalienable right to privacy." Noble and correct, but if this technical war is successfully waged as mentioned it all becomes moot. Some may desire that the internet moves to a set-top box model of pressing buttons to get an un-inspectable, unmodifable content window for consumption, but many of us do not. I can't think of anything worse: the open web transformed by ad-tech behemoths into some kind of locked-down hotel entertainment system. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24276819 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24276819 [2] https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock#philosophy https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock#philosophy
  - cycloptic 6y ago
    You're talking to someone who hasn't used a browser without ublock origin since 2014. Just looking at the spec, it's not any more effort to build a zip file than it is to build a web bundle.
    - liability 6y ago
      Google pushing this does more to normalize the practice than anybody in this thread who 'tinkered with an equivalent idea a few years ago' or whatever.
spankalee 6y ago
WebBundles don't "blackbox" web sites at all. Where's this claim coming from?
- justsee 6y ago
  That claim comes from you, as a Google employee? I didn't say that, and I would assume most HN readers understand I was moving from the specific concerns content blockers have with your 'WebBundles' proposal to commentary on the wider motivations of Google: that its business interests logically drive it to find ways to thwart content blockers which frustrate their ad-tech ecosystem. A web architecture which does not allow content to be modified – one that results in websites being a 'black box' – is the ideal outcome for Google's ad-tech ecosystem. I am hardly claiming any one initiative takes us straight there - that would be quite the poor strategic play from Google. But Google's changes to Chrome to frustrate content-blockers [1], through to AMP and now WebBundles paint a disturbing picture for independent observers. For examples that might speak to the institutional strategies employed by Google, recall the claims from Johnathan Nightingale that Google systematically sabotaged Firefox over a decade [2]. Those claims are telling not just for the institutional analysis, but for the revelation of an honest mindset among Google engineers internally: "I think our friends inside Google genuinely believed that. At the individual level, their engineers cared about most of the same things we did." When I see the valid claims made of serious issues around AMP and WebBundles, and see honest, heartfelt responses from Google engineers that it's all fine and a beat-up, I can't help but think of Nightingale's observations. "Hey everyone, it's all fine. We mean well. Don't worry - nothing to see here." [1] https://www.cnet.com/news/google-holds-firm-on-chrome-changes-that-may-break-ad-blockers/ https://www.cnet.com/news/google-holds-firm-on-chrome-change... [2] https://www.zdnet.com/article/former-mozilla-exec-google-has-sabotaged-firefox-for-years/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/former-mozilla-exec-google-has...
  - spankalee 6y ago
    I don't work on WebBundles, but I do work on open source web libraries, used by web developers, who often struggle to tie together tools to make up for the lack of asset bundling in the web. I care very much about this feature as a way to reduce complexity and friction for developers, fully unlock new web features, and improve UX via fast asset loading and better caching. And I'm not making a "claim" out of thin air. The WebBundles spec is available for anyone to look at: https://wicg.github.io/webpackage/draft-yasskin-wpack-bundled-exchanges.html https://wicg.github.io/webpackage/draft-yasskin-wpack-bundle... WebBundles plug into the exiting request/response flow and allow a browser to fetch a response from the bundle instead of the server: https://wicg.github.io/webpackage/draft-yasskin-wpack-bundled-exchanges.html#name-load-a-response-from-a-bund https://wicg.github.io/webpackage/draft-yasskin-wpack-bundle... It's effectively serializing a HTTP/2 stream. A browser doesn't have to fetch from the bundle and can fetch from the URL directly as well. Any processing currently done at the request/response level, like blocking, is still done on the request/response level. There is an objective truth here that is not subject to conspiracy theories about the intent of Google. WebBundles do not prevent content from being modified, and does not make web sites a "black box". That's just FUD, and I challenge you to point to where WebBundles do any such thing. WebBundles are an archive format with an easily parsable index, and where it's easy to read individual files based on their offset in the bundle. The contents of WebBundles are individually processed, individually addressed by URL, individually populate the network cache. If you have any evidence to back up your description of WebBundles as a black box, please provide it, because the fact on the ground do not support that assertion, and the article in question doesn't even directly claim that, even though it sneakily skirts around the issue by comparing bundles to PDFs. PDFs aren't modelled as a bundle of several responses, so the comparison is flat out wrong.

apostacy 6y ago

They have wanted to kill the URL for a long time. The mask often slips. There have been so many half baked attempts trotted out, and nobody liked them. every browser has tried de-emphasizing the URL, and Chrome even tried completely eliminating it.[1] They hate that people can deep link into their platforms and share these links with each other, untracked. They want to have complete control of the experience. They are slowly migrating us to a network of crummy walled gardens. If it was up to them, they would just have you download a giant .exe file and require that you run with admin privileges. The only protections that the likes of Google would offer you is that the different pieces of opaque adware clogging up your device not interfere with each other, and not to so destabilize your device that you can't be advertised to. In other words, Android. And they will use every bit of leverage they have to continue to corral us from the open pastures of the web into their nightmarish silos. A powerful bulwark against this was Mozilla. But their #1 priority now is to validate and amplify Google's vision of the web. Rest assured, now matter how awful and user-hostile webundles turn out to be, Mozilla will be there, offering an inferior implementation. Firefox got popular because they completely rejected Microsoft's vision of the web. They didn't try to implement Microsoft's terrible ideas, because they were user hostile and not worth implementing. [1]: https://www.pcworld.com/article/2362123/google-chromes-origin-chip-experimental-feature-appears-to-be-on-hold.html https://www.pcworld.com/article/2362123/google-chromes-origi... [2]: https://villing.com/articles/facebook-is-the-new-aol/ https://villing.com/articles/facebook-is-the-new-aol/

rektide 6y ago
A bundle transparently "expands" into the url'ed resources in it. URLs are not going anywhere. I'm one of the sometimes shrill voices when the url is getting de-emphasized but I really don't feel like webbundles are part of that threat. What is different is that a server no longer has to be online serving content for folks to be able to get content. 3rd parties being able to serve content is a very different world indeed, & I have reservations about folks no longer having to run their own big world facing services & becoming reliant upon 3rd party serving. But those concerns are far outweighed by how excellent it will be being able to share web content with friends while offline together, being able to easily transfer webapps among users, &c.

cycloptic 6y ago

I just don't get this criticism, nothing in web bundles appears to be particularly new, nor would it make it much easier to create private javascript namespaces. Years ago I built web apps that were packaged as zip files, which then were decompressed in a worker and then had javascript loaded from them. If you want to do this right now, it's not hard.

justsee 6y ago
The blog author summarises the core issue here [1]. WebBundles are an attack on user agency: the right to filter content on the open web. Google putting forward a proposal which directly attacks the ability of general-purpose blockers to operate is not a case of "nothing to see here, I did something I think approximates this situation years back". The moral case of "blocking = theft" clearly isn't getting political traction so an alternative or accompaniment is pushing standards to destroy the rights of user agency. Keep in mind Gorhill's statement on justifying uBlock Origin [2]: "That said, it's important to note that using a blocker is NOT theft. Don't fall for this creepy idea. The ultimate logical consequence of blocking = theft is the criminalisation of the inalienable right to privacy." Noble and correct, but if this technical war is successfully waged as mentioned it all becomes moot. Some may desire that the internet moves to a set-top box model of pressing buttons to get an un-inspectable, unmodifable content window for consumption, but many of us do not. I can't think of anything worse: the open web transformed by ad-tech behemoths into some kind of locked-down hotel entertainment system. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24276819 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24276819 [2] https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock#philosophy https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock#philosophy
- cycloptic 6y ago
  You're talking to someone who hasn't used a browser without ublock origin since 2014. Just looking at the spec, it's not any more effort to build a zip file than it is to build a web bundle.
  - liability 6y ago
    Google pushing this does more to normalize the practice than anybody in this thread who 'tinkered with an equivalent idea a few years ago' or whatever.

spankalee 6y ago

WebBundles don't "blackbox" web sites at all. Where's this claim coming from?

justsee 6y ago
That claim comes from you, as a Google employee? I didn't say that, and I would assume most HN readers understand I was moving from the specific concerns content blockers have with your 'WebBundles' proposal to commentary on the wider motivations of Google: that its business interests logically drive it to find ways to thwart content blockers which frustrate their ad-tech ecosystem. A web architecture which does not allow content to be modified – one that results in websites being a 'black box' – is the ideal outcome for Google's ad-tech ecosystem. I am hardly claiming any one initiative takes us straight there - that would be quite the poor strategic play from Google. But Google's changes to Chrome to frustrate content-blockers [1], through to AMP and now WebBundles paint a disturbing picture for independent observers. For examples that might speak to the institutional strategies employed by Google, recall the claims from Johnathan Nightingale that Google systematically sabotaged Firefox over a decade [2]. Those claims are telling not just for the institutional analysis, but for the revelation of an honest mindset among Google engineers internally: "I think our friends inside Google genuinely believed that. At the individual level, their engineers cared about most of the same things we did." When I see the valid claims made of serious issues around AMP and WebBundles, and see honest, heartfelt responses from Google engineers that it's all fine and a beat-up, I can't help but think of Nightingale's observations. "Hey everyone, it's all fine. We mean well. Don't worry - nothing to see here." [1] https://www.cnet.com/news/google-holds-firm-on-chrome-changes-that-may-break-ad-blockers/ https://www.cnet.com/news/google-holds-firm-on-chrome-change... [2] https://www.zdnet.com/article/former-mozilla-exec-google-has-sabotaged-firefox-for-years/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/former-mozilla-exec-google-has...
- spankalee 6y ago
  I don't work on WebBundles, but I do work on open source web libraries, used by web developers, who often struggle to tie together tools to make up for the lack of asset bundling in the web. I care very much about this feature as a way to reduce complexity and friction for developers, fully unlock new web features, and improve UX via fast asset loading and better caching. And I'm not making a "claim" out of thin air. The WebBundles spec is available for anyone to look at: https://wicg.github.io/webpackage/draft-yasskin-wpack-bundled-exchanges.html https://wicg.github.io/webpackage/draft-yasskin-wpack-bundle... WebBundles plug into the exiting request/response flow and allow a browser to fetch a response from the bundle instead of the server: https://wicg.github.io/webpackage/draft-yasskin-wpack-bundled-exchanges.html#name-load-a-response-from-a-bund https://wicg.github.io/webpackage/draft-yasskin-wpack-bundle... It's effectively serializing a HTTP/2 stream. A browser doesn't have to fetch from the bundle and can fetch from the URL directly as well. Any processing currently done at the request/response level, like blocking, is still done on the request/response level. There is an objective truth here that is not subject to conspiracy theories about the intent of Google. WebBundles do not prevent content from being modified, and does not make web sites a "black box". That's just FUD, and I challenge you to point to where WebBundles do any such thing. WebBundles are an archive format with an easily parsable index, and where it's easy to read individual files based on their offset in the bundle. The contents of WebBundles are individually processed, individually addressed by URL, individually populate the network cache. If you have any evidence to back up your description of WebBundles as a black box, please provide it, because the fact on the ground do not support that assertion, and the article in question doesn't even directly claim that, even though it sneakily skirts around the issue by comparing bundles to PDFs. PDFs aren't modelled as a bundle of several responses, so the comparison is flat out wrong.