4 ms·

I do recall, but the problem is the of the list of prior-issues you present, half those issues still persist in AMP, minus motion/fading effects. There are stil

by petee 5y ago

I do recall, but the problem is the of the list of prior-issues you present, half those issues still persist in AMP, minus motion/fading effects. There are still so many ads it bogs down; ads break up content; there are articles indicated as text but masquerading as videos surrounded by ads. Alot of AMP articles are simply a link telling you to continue to the full page! All seems like new forms of the same old. I'm not sure how its even possible, but I encountered one page I swear hijacked the back button.

kristopolous 5y ago
The back button hijacking is easy. You can "push" something into the "navigation stack" and then detect the "state change" of the back button. There's a few pretty simple ways to do this without magic. The website you're thinking of that does it is slashdot, sorry for the bad news. It's long been merely a shadow of the past. Amp initially didn't allow JavaScript. It had a bunch of restrictions. I honestly think it was good people doing it for a good cause but then the corporate meat grinding machine had to process it and they turned it into a power play and data mining operation. Once again, the solution is inescapable both for /. and the goog; take big money out of tech. Every significant computer revolution basically started on that premise. Time to roll it again. Consolidated power breeds incompetency. Our most noble task in life is to make the necessary possible and then inevitable
- petee 5y ago
  Ah thanks, I didn't realize they allowed JavaScript now....I thought part of the AMP was to prevent such nonsense, no wonder it's broken I dont check /. anymore, one of the major news outlets
alisonkisk 5y ago
It's not AMP's fault that some sites refuse to limit themselves to AMP's good practices.
- petee 5y ago
  I had been under the impression that part of the AMP ecosystem or whatever was to enforce those practices. Otherwise, what's even the point of AMP? If anyone can do anything we're just back to the junk web again

by petee 5y ago

kristopolous 5y ago

The back button hijacking is easy. You can "push" something into the "navigation stack" and then detect the "state change" of the back button. There's a few pretty simple ways to do this without magic. The website you're thinking of that does it is slashdot, sorry for the bad news. It's long been merely a shadow of the past. Amp initially didn't allow JavaScript. It had a bunch of restrictions. I honestly think it was good people doing it for a good cause but then the corporate meat grinding machine had to process it and they turned it into a power play and data mining operation. Once again, the solution is inescapable both for /. and the goog; take big money out of tech. Every significant computer revolution basically started on that premise. Time to roll it again. Consolidated power breeds incompetency. Our most noble task in life is to make the necessary possible and then inevitable

petee 5y ago
Ah thanks, I didn't realize they allowed JavaScript now....I thought part of the AMP was to prevent such nonsense, no wonder it's broken I dont check /. anymore, one of the major news outlets

alisonkisk 5y ago

It's not AMP's fault that some sites refuse to limit themselves to AMP's good practices.

petee 5y ago
I had been under the impression that part of the AMP ecosystem or whatever was to enforce those practices. Otherwise, what's even the point of AMP? If anyone can do anything we're just back to the junk web again