4 ms·

The guardian drains battery because it calls 15 JavaScript files on each page load, followed by another every 5 seconds. This can be solved by blocking 3rd par

The guardian drains battery because it calls 15 JavaScript files on each page load, followed by another every 5 seconds. This can be solved by blocking 3rd party JavaScript, no need for anything Google related.

earthboundkid 6y ago
All of that shit JS is Google related. They don’t write it (all) themselves but they absolutely are responsible for creating the platform for it.
- nl 6y ago
  This seems a strange take. Half the argument is "Google is taking too much control over the web by forcing people to use AMP" and the other half is "Google is to blame for companies using non-Google related services when they don't use AMP because they created the platform for it (??)". I can understand the first half of the argument. The second half seems to blame Google for creating the web or something?
  - pirocks 6y ago
    I absolutely blame Google + a number of other companies, for the bloated state of the web today. They encouraged and invented most of the bloat.
    - nl 6y ago
      I can understand that argument in regards to standards (I disagree, but it is a coherent argument at least). But that argument doesn't hold up with Javascript based ad serving, which was around prior to Google.
      - earthboundkid 6y ago
        Google has owned Double Click for twelve years. In all that time, they couldn't fix ad hosting?
  - earthboundkid 6y ago
    The take is absolutely coherent: JavaScript based ad/analytics tech is bloating the web. Everyone knows this, and there's no denying it. Google is one of the main advertising/analytics platforms on the web. Google is aware that JS is poisoning the web, but they don't want to kill the golden goose and they do want to entrench their ad monopoly. How to square the circle? They should but won't just tell advertisers that creatives need to be static image/video assets, thereby saving bandwidth, protecting privacy, and not really doing anything to ad buyers (because ad buyers are driven by their fixed budgets and not by absolute platform capabilities, just relative capabilities). Since that's too risky to Google's core business, instead they create a new format (AMP) with deliberately limited JS capabilities and, oh yeah, built in support for Google ads. For everyone who is not Google, this solution sucks. It means duplicate work to create a new format, the new format is different than the web but not a meaningful source of new traffic because it's just a splinter of existing traffic, and it further exposes your business to Google as the core gatekeeper of revenue (FaceBook is the other revenue gatekeeper). That is, you need Google search and Google ad money to survive and if they change the search algo or ad rates (ie now ads need to be videos or now ads need viewability or whatever), you can be crushed without notice.

earthboundkid 6y ago

All of that shit JS is Google related. They don’t write it (all) themselves but they absolutely are responsible for creating the platform for it.

nl 6y ago
This seems a strange take. Half the argument is "Google is taking too much control over the web by forcing people to use AMP" and the other half is "Google is to blame for companies using non-Google related services when they don't use AMP because they created the platform for it (??)". I can understand the first half of the argument. The second half seems to blame Google for creating the web or something?
- pirocks 6y ago
  I absolutely blame Google + a number of other companies, for the bloated state of the web today. They encouraged and invented most of the bloat.
  - nl 6y ago
    I can understand that argument in regards to standards (I disagree, but it is a coherent argument at least). But that argument doesn't hold up with Javascript based ad serving, which was around prior to Google.
    - earthboundkid 6y ago
      Google has owned Double Click for twelve years. In all that time, they couldn't fix ad hosting?
- earthboundkid 6y ago
  The take is absolutely coherent: JavaScript based ad/analytics tech is bloating the web. Everyone knows this, and there's no denying it. Google is one of the main advertising/analytics platforms on the web. Google is aware that JS is poisoning the web, but they don't want to kill the golden goose and they do want to entrench their ad monopoly. How to square the circle? They should but won't just tell advertisers that creatives need to be static image/video assets, thereby saving bandwidth, protecting privacy, and not really doing anything to ad buyers (because ad buyers are driven by their fixed budgets and not by absolute platform capabilities, just relative capabilities). Since that's too risky to Google's core business, instead they create a new format (AMP) with deliberately limited JS capabilities and, oh yeah, built in support for Google ads. For everyone who is not Google, this solution sucks. It means duplicate work to create a new format, the new format is different than the web but not a meaningful source of new traffic because it's just a splinter of existing traffic, and it further exposes your business to Google as the core gatekeeper of revenue (FaceBook is the other revenue gatekeeper). That is, you need Google search and Google ad money to survive and if they change the search algo or ad rates (ie now ads need to be videos or now ads need viewability or whatever), you can be crushed without notice.