5 ms·
The solution is not to let Google be the gatekeepers of the internet. There are so many other things you could do that fixes your problem WITHOUT handing over
by toxik 6y ago
The solution is not to let Google be the gatekeepers of the internet.
There are so many other things you could do that fixes your problem WITHOUT handing over the internet to a single company.
- emodendroket 6y agoOk. What are they and who's doing them? At a certain point we need to engage with the world as it is, not as we would like it to be. In fact, one might argue that AMP would never have taken off if Google did not already serve that gatekeeper role.
- toxik 6y agoGoogle is the disease itself. Clicks are a terrible way to incentivize, and this has been shaking the foundations of our democracies in the last decade. You will note that Wikipedia, for example, doesn’t have the type of bloat that an online newspaper article does. Why is that? The question is one of incentives.
- lotsofpulp 6y agoIncentives such as earning sufficient income to secure resources for one’s self and family. It seems pointless to bring up a volunteer run website where people do charity work in a discussion about business practices of businesses that need to have cash flow to pay employees.
- emodendroket 6y agoI don't think every Web site begging its users for money is a solution that will scale out. Wikipedia also has the advantage of not needing to pay its contributors.
- maccard 6y agoSuch as? I agree with the OP, for what it's worth. In the vast majority of cases amp content loads quicker, is presented better, and is less obtrusive, even browsing with an adblocker
- Nextgrid 6y agoSuch as using page speed and the presence of annoying elements (ads, etc) as a ranking signal but without forcing websites to use AMP which involves having Google as a proxy.
- adventured 6y agoThis one makes it all the more obvious what Google is actually doing. They have a search monopoly and supposedly are heavily biased on speed as a ranking factor. Well golly gee, if you want the Web to be a lot faster, smash sites with brutal speed ranking penalties until they get the message. It wouldn't be difficult nor would it take much time to get the point across (in fact it would be trivially easy). There is no other logical explanation other than Google's intentions are gatekeeper (and plausibly much worse in time: hostage taker), not primarily to make the Web a better place (that's merely the lie they're pitching as a cover story).
- muro 6y agoI think the positive approach (use amp, the page will load faster, which users like) is a good alternative to the negative (downranking). It's not just "make your page faster, or else!", but provides a good solution, too. As I user, I love amp. As a developer, I understand the concerns (though I don't think they materialized in the way HN sentiment goes).
- dmitriid 6y agoIt doesn't provide a good solution. It's Google's arbitrary proprietary subset of web technologies. It's only fast because Google preloads all of JS while you search. It aggressively hides the origin source, depriving sites of user traffic. Google prioritizes AMP content over any other content even if that other content may be better and/or load faster.
- joshuamorton 6y ago> It aggressively hides the origin source, depriving sites of user traffic. What does this mean? If I click a link on an amp page, I may end up on the full site, and if not, analytics and ads are supported. What do I lose other than the cost of rendering a page view?