4 ms·
It's a little more nuanced than "many people...rationalize...because it's specifically targeting Google". It wasn't that long ago that Google was forcing AMP o
by tyingq 3y ago
It's a little more nuanced than "many people...rationalize...because it's specifically targeting Google".
It wasn't that long ago that Google was forcing AMP onto the same publishers by making it a requirement to appear in the news carousel. That forced a lot of unwanted intrusion into content that wasn't Google's to mess with. Including a forced banner in the most valuable space, hijacking right/left swipes to navigate to competitor publisher sites, etc. They have a strong demonstrated history of doing the wrong thing in this space.
Though, I agree, this law and the outcome aren't the solution.
- kittiepryde 3y agoAMP made the internet on my phone work. Most sites seem to dedicate 50% or more of the screen space to advertisements and load very slowly -- AMP sites were just crazy more performant -- I'm not saying AMP was the right move to make, but, it was trying to solve a real problem (similar to this bill also likely being the wrong move)
- tyingq 3y agoIt did have some benefits for consumers (and some drawbacks also). That doesn't really change what they did to publishers with it though.
- basisword 3y agoAMP worked like shit for me. Any time I had weird behavioural issues with a site, I’d look to the address bar and spot AMP. Using an extensions to prevent AMP stealing my clicks has made my phones browser work much better.
- jefftk 3y agoGuess: you were running iOS and your parent was running Android
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]