Slashdot Mirror


Should Webmasters Resist Google's Push For AMP Pages? (polemicdigital.com)

"Have you heard of Google AMP? That stands for Accelerated Mobile Pages, and it's a way of making webpages so that they load faster and display more efficiently on mobile devices. Oh, and it puts your website under Google's control."

That's Mac Observer co-founder Bryan Chaffin, linking to an "interesting reading" titled "Google AMP Can Go To Hell." AMP allows Google to basically take over hosting the web as well. The Google AMP Cache will serve AMP pages instead of a website's own hosting environment, and also allow Google to perform their own optimisations to further enhance user experience. As a side benefit, it also allows Google full control over content monetisation. No more rogue ad networks, no more malicious ads, all monetisation approved and regulated by Google. If anything happens that falls outside of the AMP standard's restrictions, the page in question simply becomes AMP-invalid and is ejected from the AMP cache -- and subsequently from Google's results. At that point the page might as well not exist any more....

The easy thing to do is to simply obey. Do what Google says. Accept their proclamations and jump when they tell you to. Or you could fight back. You could tell them to stuff it, and find ways to undermine their dominance. Use a different search engine, and convince your friends and family to do the same. Write to your elected officials and ask them to investigate Google's monopoly. Stop using the Chrome browser. Ditch your Android phone. Turn off Google's tracking of your every move. And, for goodness sake, disable AMP on your website.

Don't feed the monster -- fight it.

Here's how web developer Macieg Ceeglowski put it in 2015. "Out of an abundance of love for the mobile web, Google has volunteered to run the infrastructure, especially the user tracking parts of it." But are these assessments too harsh? Leave your own thoughts in the comment.

Should webmasters resist Google's push for AMP pages?

190 comments

  1. No Dictators -- None -- Zero by BoRegardless · · Score: 2

    Dictators do not work for industry or countries.

    1. Re:No Dictators -- None -- Zero by blahplusplus · · Score: 2

      Dictators do not work for industry or countries.

      Too late, you missed the fact that companies can basically steal and lock down products from the safety of their offices and extract "tribute" from the masses. This happened to videogames. Ultimately all the big videogame companies are looking to lock software inside the "cloud".

      You'd need physical proximity to the business to force companies to give you the software you are paying for. They can just steal it and call it a service.

      To call a society where the big software companies make software and never give it to their customers a "market" is laughable on its face. You have no power in this relationship to influence this company's behavior as you are 100's of miles away.

    2. Re: No Dictators -- None -- Zero by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait, but Google is the Internet. What am I missing here?

  2. Hell yes by ahodgson · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And their font servers. And Google Analytics. And their "free" dns. Fuck Google tracking everything everyone does online.

    1. Re:Hell yes by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Actually Google provides better privacy for users.

      Your ISP can directly connect your DNS queries to you. Google just sees a query from an IP address and that could be your VPN service. At least, it's no worse than your ISP.

      Ads are dangerous. They often contain malware. Google is by far the best when it comes to checking ads for malware and limiting them to text and a malware scanned link. Also, you can really easily block them. So AMP pages are great if you like your privacy.

      For webmasters I don't know, but there hasn't been a big backlash from the major content providers so I'm guessing it can't be that bad. But for users it's great.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re: Hell yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      The ISP I work for used to provide DNS with our broadband. We did no capture or logging of any kind of customer queries, nor did we alter results in any way, just pure caching anycast resolvers. As cached results didn't hit transit or peering at all, it was also faster than using Google. However, more and more customers started using Google DNS after word of mouth claimed it was faster (in some situations it is, sure) Eventually we dropped providing broadband, but the anecdotal "Google is always faster" still causes me to facepalm.

    3. Re:Hell yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Assuming ISPs actually do that. Which I seriously doubt in regions with tough privacy laws. Google just hides behind layers and layers legal declarations that snake through multiple jurisdictions.

      On top of that, Google runs everything in this scenario. They have access to much more data and they do collect as much as they can. They control web sites and they shape what you get to see. If they don't like what they see, you as a user won't get to see it either.

    4. Re: Hell yes by tysonedwards · · Score: 2

      When I had CenturyLink, their default DNS servers returned tainted results when a host couldnâ(TM)t be reached - one that was a CenturyLink branded search page with ads for services similar to where I was intending to go.

      --
      Thirty four characters live here.
    5. Re:Hell yes by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      In the UK they legally have to log. Google doesn't because it's not an ISP.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    6. Re:Hell yes by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

      No, fuck the shitty web sites which have dozens of ad servers and mouse tracking and other shit that make
      websites use 150meg + of RAM.

      Filter those ads out and the website uses under 10meg.

      This is why so many websites fail/crash under older iPads and make them useless, thus driving sales of new hardware. Filter those ads out, and bingo, suddenly, all websites work real well on 5 year old iPads.

      Fucking useless coders adding so much useless over head that does nothing for the user.

      Googles trackers are super light weight. Its the other lamers who cant code for shit, and think everyone runs a i7 laptop with 32gig ram.

      Fucking advertisers who cant code for shit.
      Someone DOS them...

      --
      Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
    7. Re: Hell yes by rufey · · Score: 1

      And CenturyLink still does this, which is why I run my own DNS servers elsewhere and do a IPSec tunnel to them, to keep CenturyLink from mucking up how DNS is supposed to work ( I have CenturyLink as my DSL provider currently).

    8. Re:Hell yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gee, thank you for that anecdotal reference. Made my day, laughing at your stupidity.

    9. Re: Hell yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you for contributing nothing whatsoever.

    10. Re: Hell yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Absolute rubbish. There is no legislation in the UK that requires ISPs to log DNS queries (in fact doing so would likely fall foul of the GDPR unless data was fully anonymised). There may be a requirement to retain information you are already logging, which itself conflics with GDPR (there's some lovely contradictory retention periods specified in various regulations) but it basically boils down to "don't log unless law enforcement comes knocking and explicitly tells you to for a specific purpose"

    11. Re: Hell yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "Actually Google provides better privacy for users."

      You can not be serious?!?!

    12. Re: Hell yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, once your website goes on AMP you don't even get to interact with your customers anymore. He who controls the infrastructure controls the data. Guess who wants all that lovely juicy data today?

      Then consider if Google wants to compete with you on the tech field then IT WILL HAVE ALL OF YOUR DATA. Further, I doubt they're above manipulating search results and conveniently blackholing some of your payment pages. Oops. Who put that yaml file there? Gee, that's bad.

    13. Re: Hell yes by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      GDPR

      No, the Russians gave you BREXIT, if you want to have those kinds of protections you're going to need to finally figure out what is supposed to be in your Constitution and write it down so that all your rights can't be changed with a random 50%+1 poll.

    14. Re: Hell yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, the russians do everything.
      They probably even stole that missing sock from my dryer.

    15. Re:Hell yes by ChatHuant · · Score: 1

      Actually Google provides better privacy for users. [...] AMP pages are great if you like your privacy.

      Thanks for providing the daily doublethink guidance from Minitruth.

    16. Re:Hell yes by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      An ad company is looking to sell and place as many ads as it can. That not "privacy for users"

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    17. Re: Hell yes by Capsaicin · · Score: 1

      [Y]ou're going to need to finally figure out what is supposed to be in your Constitution and write it down so that all your rights can't be changed with a random 50%+1 poll.

      Unless that written constitution were to include an article specifically requiring European membership --which constitutes a great deal more than "figuring out" and "writing down" what the Law is --the existence, or not, of a written constitution is irrelevant. The "poll" was just that: it has no legal significance and as such is not something which a constitution generally might affect. This was simply a political party running with an election promise, "we will poll you on this issue and do as you say." Since that party was thus elected to power; remains in power, and given the great expense of the exercise, and most importantly the perception (whatever the constitutional reality) of majority of the population that they expressed their democratic will, it is politically unthinkable to ignore the result. Politically unthinkable, not legally impossible.

      --
      Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
    18. Re:Hell yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for providing the daily doublethink guidance from Minitrue.

      FTFY ... no srsly.

    19. Re:Hell yes by ChatHuant · · Score: 1

      Bows head in ...

      No. The name has always been Minitruth.

    20. Re: Hell yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The GDPR is already law in the UK, it came into force on the 25th May this year. Slashdot is filled with so much slime these days.

    21. Re: Hell yes by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      *whoosh*!

      You did not understand my comment. Your response doesn't address the points I was making. Instead, it is recycled pap that anybody in the UK could have recited 10 years ago. That you repeat it now, when my comment is in regards to a new situation regarding UK laws, just shows you didn't comprehend it.

    22. Re: Hell yes by Capsaicin · · Score: 1

      Your response doesn't address the points I was making.

      So what were "the points" you were making, and what reasonable connection might be drawn between "a random 50%+1 poll" and the lack of a written constitution?

      Instead, it is recycled pap that anybody in the UK could have recited 10 years ago

      Obviously not. In 2008 none save legally astute clairvoyants might have commented specifically as to the legal significance of the 2016 Brexit vote.

      You did not understand my comment.

      If that be so, you plainly need to work on your written expression. Try a bit harder in your next comment, and also at least make the semblance of an attempt at a substantive rebuttal (i.e. play the ball). "You did not understand what my comment" ... "just shows you didn't comprehend it" ... deployed without even a hint as to what was misconstrued, or even some tangential engagement of the matter at hand, comes across as a rather desperate ad hominem I'm afraid. I'm sure you can do better.

      --
      Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
    23. Re: Hell yes by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Your response doesn't address the points I was making.

      So what were "the points" you were making

      Stop typing until you get there.

    24. Re: Hell yes by Capsaicin · · Score: 1

      Stop typing until you get there

      Nobody can get beyond what you actually wrote, if you refuse to correct or clarify it.

      ... BREXIT ... [Y]ou're going to need to finally figure out what is supposed to be in your Constitution and write it down so that all your rights can't be changed with a random 50%+1 poll.

      That point, absent any further clarification, must reasonably be taken to be, that a written constitution would have protected against the possibility of Brexit. For the reasons I explained above, you were wrong.

      --
      Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
  3. Desktop view by ArchieBunker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Don't know about you guys but 99% of the time on my phone I'm using the desktop version of a page. I hate mobile site design with its tons of empty space and enormous fonts.

    --
    Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    1. Re:Desktop view by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Gotta agree. Don’t know if the fundamental issue is actually ”mobile” or just “dumb designers”... but mobile sites usually suck.

      And “responsive” sites mostly seem to take that bad mobile ethos and force it on everybody, including desktop browsers. In any case, I guess that’s at least equal-opportunity suckitude...

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    2. Re: Desktop view by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's mostly dumb designers. It's been many years since web devs gained access to tools to separate content from mark up and they aren't using them properly.

      Similarly, the ui is similarly tainted by trying to use the same one on handhelds and larger displays.

    3. Re:Desktop view by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Don't know about you guys but 99% of the time on my phone I'm using the desktop version of a page. I hate mobile site design with its tons of empty space and enormous fonts.

      100% of the time. I set my user-agent to the desktop version so that I never have to worry about these two issues:

      1) Shitty mobile version of page loads and doesn't let me do anything anyway, forcing me to load the desktop version

      2) Full screen popup "Install our shitty app for this one fucking site you never go to anyway"

    4. Re:Desktop view by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only reason I've used "mobile versions" was to scrape and rip the hell out of their API. Mobile can be just as bad as desktop if not worse since your typical browser on a phone has little to no adblock abilities.

      It's simple, AMP has analytics built in. I doubt Google would ever release stats on how many users run adblock or specifically block their analytics but I'd imagine the number is worth taking note of and growing. People ARE pissed off. Their only options are to keep moving the goal post by changing technologies or use ever more invasive tracking. We are at the point where all three major browsers could intentionally make HTML slower over time to sell their "next version of the internet".

    5. Re:Desktop view by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      I hate mobile site design, with its tons of empty space and enormous fonts, with the intensity of a thousand burning suns.

      TFTFM.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    6. Re: Desktop view by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Trying to get Firefox to run on a Solaris cluster I see.

    7. Re:Desktop view by Ecuador · · Score: 1

      Actually, enormous fonts are not that bad for mobile and well, *some* empty space to click links confidently is good... But almost all mobile sites either have just a subset of the functionality, or require you to go through considerable effort to get to some information that was right there on the desktop version.
      So, yeah, I also use desktop sites, and for that reason I chose a phone with the largest screen that still fits my hand (a 5.99" thin-bezel XIaomi Mi Mix 2).
      As for Google, they have taken over Microsoft's job as corporation from hell and they try to shape and control the internet. AMP is one of their worst schemes so far.

      --
      Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
    8. Re:Desktop view by fbobraga · · Score: 1

      what means "TFTFM"?

    9. Re:Desktop view by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Don't know about you guys but 99% of the time on my phone I'm using the desktop version of a page. I hate mobile site design with its tons of empty space and enormous fonts.

      I can't stand the web while using my phone either. The weird thing is, the sites I have control over look the same on either phone or tablet or desktop.

      And I'm no dummy, but sure as hell not a hotshot. Fully functional web pages.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    10. Re:Desktop view by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

      Gotta agree. Don’t know if the fundamental issue is actually ”mobile” or just “dumb designers”... but mobile sites usually suck.

      And “responsive” sites mostly seem to take that bad mobile ethos and force it on everybody, including desktop browsers. In any case, I guess that’s at least equal-opportunity suckitude...

      I gotta go with dumb designers. I'm a half dumb designer, and I manage to make the sites I run look good on whichever platform you are on.

      I suspect these hotshots do not check out their pages except on the computer they design them on. I check my sites out on phone before I publish.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    11. Re:Desktop view by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      $TFTFY ~= s{you}{me};

    12. Re:Desktop view by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The "web designers" I've seen are just print page layout designers now doing web design, with little functional knowledge of how a web page operates, and little interest in mobile layouts.

    13. Re:Desktop view by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i work on an e-commerce website, 40% of our business comes from mobile. We can't ignore that no matter how much i personally hate browsing on the phone.

    14. Re:Desktop view by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

      The "web designers" I've seen are just print page layout designers now doing web design, with little functional knowledge of how a web page operates, and little interest in mobile layouts.

      That could explain a lot.

      It isn't like layout skills are not needed, but there is a whole lot of html coding that makes it work properly.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    15. Re:Desktop view by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      i work on an e-commerce website, 40% of our business comes from mobile. We can't ignore that no matter how much i personally hate browsing on the phone.

      That's why I design to look good on any platform. But sheesh, going to a website that shows up as a couple words because the font's are screwed up and everything is too damn big is enough to get me to go elsewhere. And in most cases, I'm not going to install an app. The few times I tried that the results weren't much better. And if I'm giving a company personal info to monetize or weaponize, the least they could do is not look like crap while doing it.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    16. Re: Desktop view by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Browsing on the phone is mostly a problem because of incompetent developers and ad companies. With XML and low resource ads, it wouldn't be much of an issue.

      But, devs today are frequently incapable of doing anything without a half dozen frameworks and toolkits that may or may not handle mobile properly. Plus they need multiple megabytes to load a simple page.

    17. Re:Desktop view by jimbo · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately we can look forward to the web serving up only mobile sites, even for the desktop. Actually it started years ago with desktop sites and blogs putting up bigger images, then later came burger menus on desktop, etc. it's just accelerating to all out mobile web now.

    18. Re:Desktop view by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I can't even figure out what the "push" is that is intended to be resisted; it seems to me they published some specs, offered some services, and nobody wants to use it. For obvious reasons.

      If they want to apply force, I say, "Bring It!" Microsoft tried that, it doesn't end well for them. If they want to go that route, while already having a monopoly, they end up either split into pieces, or siloed into them.

    19. Re: Desktop view by fbobraga · · Score: 1

      From "FTFY" right? And the initial "T"? * sorry for the question: I'm not a native English speaker, and have been out /. for some months...

  4. Yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes

    1. Re: Yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Page doesn't load. Can't scroll. No url. Can't zoom. No navigation buttons. AMP SUCKS

    2. Re: Yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Firefox app and duckduckgo on my phone, as a result of Chrome's AMP bullshit.

      And no way are our client's web sites getting served via AMP.

  5. Yes, yes, yes by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 4, Funny

    Betteridge be damned.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  6. Yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes siree

  7. GPDR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I look forward to the day Google gets record breaking fine for collecting all these personal information without informing or consent from the end users.

    Google is free to withdraw from Europe as they had withdrawn from China. Another Europe based search engine will take over, as has happened in China.

    1. Re:GPDR by Tim+Locke · · Score: 1

      There is already one: qwant.com

      --
      *** On the Internet, no one knows you're using a VIC-20
  8. damn it all by TimMD909 · · Score: 5, Funny
    I would've gotten first post on this, but the page loaded too slowly. Dammit.

    Something should be done about this. Anyone ask Google what their thoughts are?

    1. Re:damn it all by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Even Google can't fix Slashdot's mobile experience.

    2. Re: damn it all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not that bad, you just have to manually change the URI to be m.Slashdot rather than whatever it wants.

  9. Yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes.

  10. Mobile devices vs full-feldge computers by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    Seems like every year the distinction between the two narrows. Wouldn't that mean that AMP's original purpose is soon obsolete once mobile devices (both CPU and network) are fast enough for the job.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    1. Re:Mobile devices vs full-feldge computers by tsa · · Score: 2

      And then Google has the whole world wide web under its control.

      --

      -- Cheers!

    2. Re:Mobile devices vs full-feldge computers by omnichad · · Score: 1

      I don't care how fast my network is. I don't want bandwidth-wasting mobile sites. Not just because I have a limited data cap, but it's still faster to have a lean site regardless.

    3. Re:Mobile devices vs full-feldge computers by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Not is the network is a going to be a direct network to an ad company.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    4. Re:Mobile devices vs full-feldge computers by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      theoretically it's the desktop sites that use more bandwidth. they are supposed to be simpler and easier for the device to process and contain less layout directives and fewer superfluous images. Arguable if it is successful in practice, but that is the intent.

      Having a site that loads in 50ms versus 20ms won't really matter to a typical end-user. Of course a site that loads in 5 seconds versus 2 seconds will be noticeable. So scale does matter. I predict "desktop" sites will be able to load on our phones in that 50ms range one day. (conveniently I'll leave out when that day will be)

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    5. Re:Mobile devices vs full-feldge computers by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Having a site that loads in 50ms versus 20ms won't really matter to a typical end-user

      If only load times aimed low. It took 300ms just to load the HTML for this page. Nothing else loaded until then. The Javascript on the page took 1.17 seconds and the last resource didn't finish loading until almost the 4 second mark. The page did start rendering by about 1-2 seconds, so it didn't feel slow. But Slashdot is actually on the nice end of load times compared to especially news sites.

    6. Re:Mobile devices vs full-feldge computers by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      I remember when a large page took 10-15 seconds to load in Lynx, and it wouldn't display until it the HTML was completely downloaded.

      I think like most other things, the software expands as memory, network, and processing power increases. Leaving us with only slightly faster user experience rather than the 1000x faster experience that raw numbers might indicate. (4MB unix workstation running Lynx on a 20 MHz cpu, to a 16GB laptop with four 2 GHz cpus). It seems faster, but not massively so. Much prettier though.

      And now we get to my [attempted] original point. Pretty web pages and fancy apps are going to drive mobile devices to higher levels of performance. Video streaming drives the network to become faster. And embedded videos and interactive sites drives more full featured web browsers.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  11. Cycles of Frameworks by buravirgil · · Score: 1

    It is the framework which changes with each new technology and not just the picture within the frame.
    ~Marshall McLuhan

    The web's search for mechanisms of underwriting is reflected in the screen's "real estate" beginning with AOL's valuations that were sufficient to merge with Time/Warner and navigation was compromised by strategic ad placement informed by users' studies-- the screen was so crowded out, advertisers sought as many inadvertent clicks as purposeful ones. Notions of micro-payments were floated before web-counters could ever be accurate, and the bubble burst.

    Followed by a renaissance of white-space: Google, Craig's List, & Wikipedia. I have this fantasy that everyone working at Wikipedia should lease and control Alphabet for three years and vice-versa ;)

    Followed by FlashSplash, a spectrum auction, and Analytics-- which was addressed by lobbyists, resulting in Cambridge that quickly corrupted because...it was an artificial solution to underwriting. One reason Google recently could defer Congress is it already addressed its monopoly with Alphabet.

    The terms: externality, extractive economies, and (the most harrowing and dreadful and hopeful) late-stage capitalism will be addressed by generations as creative as our own with DARPA's fail-safe network that is obviously a useful and significant tool for those generations. I am perplexed by how the character of a home-brew innovation is marshaled by profit-seekers to fashion a globe of "clouds" and thin-clients, but am reluctant to assert any technology is not so yoked and potentially transcendent

    --
    Would were! Should is! Could be! And live a hundred times three.
  12. content by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What is the current ratio of tracking and styling to content on Slashdot? Asking for a friend.

  13. No... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We should be demanding Google be regulated as a common carrier.

    1. Re:No... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      We should be demanding Google be taken out and shot.

      FTFY

  14. Google overstepping, still nobody cares by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    In so many ways Google is clearly overstepping their authority. Just like when Microsoft was out of control, I'm seeing a bunch of sheep with their heads in the sand. Still sucking on Google's tit, refusing to acknowledge the bad behavior, refusing to choose responsible alternatives for Chrome and Google's other crappy products.

    Well, just like last time, Firefox will be there when ya'all are ready to stand up.

    1. Re:Google overstepping, still nobody cares by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Firefox will be there when ya'all are ready to stand up.

      LOLOL

      Firefox was there last time, and it was open source, so at least there will be a fork or something. But the idea that the thing that was called "Firefox" back then still exists is pretty funny. The name was clearly transferred, there is no question about that part.

  15. Fast, easy to navigate. by rundgong · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I bet Google crawlers love it when a web page is small, fast to load, and easy to navigate.
    But do you know who else likes that? HUMANS like that too!

    I get that there are some legitimate issues with AMP, but this sounds a bit like the guy in one of the linked articles is annoyed that Google wants him to stop making shitty websites and he doesn't like it at all because it creates more work for him.

    1. Re:Fast, easy to navigate. by religionofpeas · · Score: 2

      I bet Google crawlers love it when a web page is small, fast to load, and easy to navigate.

      I bet Google doesn't care for regular desktop pages.

    2. Re:Fast, easy to navigate. by MonopolyKiller · · Score: 2

      And they get a monopoly over websites after that? Than what? They show you what they want to show you. You sure you want a monopoly over a bit longer load time?

    3. Re:Fast, easy to navigate. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      google can't monetize the desktop like it can mobile (nor spy on it as 'comprehensively'). ..... at least, not yet.

    4. Re:Fast, easy to navigate. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes, we humans like siters that loads fast. So much so, that we prioritize fast sites over "interesting" design! Most of the pages I read, look boring from a distance. Such as this one. The interest is in the content, not in the looks.

      AMP is not needed to speed up slow-loading sites. The slow-loading sites are not being read by humans. They break connection and go to some other site - clickbots can have the slow sites alone.

    5. Re:Fast, easy to navigate. by rundgong · · Score: 1

      I would love to have Google give lower rankings for desktop sites full of bloated slow loading crap too.

    6. Re:Fast, easy to navigate. by rundgong · · Score: 3, Informative

      Sites with "interesting design" NEVER have a focus on content.

      When you have a focus on content your site will end up exactly like an AMP page. Fast loading and easy to navigate.
      Slow loading bloat is only ever present because of intrusive ads and tracking scripts.

    7. Re:Fast, easy to navigate. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What Google really, really dislikes is Scientology. I'm not kidding. When the Internet, especially Usenet, first started publishing the cult's inner secrets, they kept trying to ask protesters what it would take to get them to shut up and shut down the websites and get it out of the search engines. We pointed out "you can't, it's free speech. You can speak for yourselves." So their webmaster, Jurien Massena, helped them create the biggest website in the world to flood the search results with content. Unfortunately, it was so big, it broke Google. Twice, as Google tried repeatedly to scan the whole website, it crashed servers. Google had to stop indexing the Scientology site for days until they could bump up their infrastructure.

      This was quite some time ago. Jurien since left the cult, I had some interesting chats with him.

    8. Re:Fast, easy to navigate. by WaffleMonster · · Score: 2

      I get that there are some legitimate issues with AMP, but this sounds a bit like the guy in one of the linked articles is annoyed that Google wants him to stop making shitty websites and he doesn't like it at all because it creates more work for him.

      This sounds a bit like a paid Google shill who is annoyed others would dare challenge Google's defacto Monopoly search position and associated bid to take over the Web.

      The above statement is a mirror. Don't blame me if you don't like the reflection.

    9. Re:Fast, easy to navigate. by rundgong · · Score: 1

      So by acknowledging it has issues but pointing out that parts of it is actually good for end users, that makes me a shill?
      Google's dominance is obviously a huge problem when they abuse it. But the solution is not to keep making shitty bloated websites.

    10. Re:Fast, easy to navigate. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The issue is that if your page is small, fast to load, and easy to navigate but not in AMP, and your competition's site is all of things because it is in AMP, they are going to show first in results, and more prominently as well.

      So yes, make your mobile site better. But that isn't what is happening here.

    11. Re:Fast, easy to navigate. by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

      So by acknowledging it has issues but pointing out that parts of it is actually good for end users, that makes me a shill?

      Do you think I'm being unfair to you? That was the point.

      It was a demonstration of the problem with mudslinging:

      "this sounds a bit like the guy in one of the linked articles is annoyed that Google wants him to stop making shitty websites and he doesn't like it at all because it creates more work for him".

      You without citing evidence assert the person is lazy, angry and that he makes "shitty websites" in an attempt to marginalize and discredit him. I simply pulled the same stunt and directed it at yourself.

      Don't like it? Don't do it.

    12. Re:Fast, easy to navigate. by rundgong · · Score: 1

      I didn't say angry, but I stand by lazy and shitty websites. Obviously a bit exaggerated to make a point.
      The evidence are the screenshots he posted about his sites issues according to Google. (bad mobile version of his website)
      And the whole article is there because it creates more work for him, and he does not want to do it.(lazy)

    13. Re:Fast, easy to navigate. by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

      I didn't say angry, but I stand by lazy and shitty websites.

      Annoyed is a subset of anger.

      The evidence are the screenshots he posted about his sites issues according to Google.

      Totality of screenshots provide the following data:

      "Reported page navigation issue on your AMP pages
      Reported missing non-critical content issue on your AMP pages
      Reported social media issue on your AMP pages
      Reported media issue on your AMP pages

      An evaluation of your site has revealed issues with some of your AMP pages. This issue will not affect your appearance on search, but with just a few changes, you could improve the user experience on these pages. You can see a list of affected pages at the end of this message."

      From screenshots alone there is NO useful data presented with which to make any kind of informed determination. The messages are too vague and no contextual data is present. The author actually goes on to explain further the root causes as simply a lack of equivalence to non-AMP version of site.

      Therefore your conclusion his websites suck is based entirely on the fact AMP version != Non-AMP version. Your assumption his website sucks is completely without merit.

      And the whole article is there because it creates more work for him, and he does not want to do it

      Is the assertion here is if something creates more work and you partially cite this as a reason for not wanting to do it this fact makes you a lazy person?

      If so I don't see how such a construction is even falsifiable. There seems to be no useful test whereby someone could not be accused of being a lazy person even if everyone agreed workload vs. benefit was unreasonable.

      Do you even have evidence of that being the case?

    14. Re:Fast, easy to navigate. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, the fastest mobile friendly site I've ever seen is a blog that was 100% pure HTML with CSS inline in the HTML file (and literally zero JavaScript) Each page was literally only one request.

      With complete pages weighing in at 4.1 kilobytes, on today's internet the pages are loaded and displayed faster than most web pages can begin to load their JavaScript framework du jour, let alone any kind of asynchronous loading.)

      It's amazing how much things like NoScript and ScriptSafe speed up web pages and save my laptop's fan..

    15. Re:Fast, easy to navigate. by rundgong · · Score: 1

      It's not vague. They enumerate 4 features that are present on the main page, but are missing on the mobile version.
      His argument is that there is more work to also fix it for mobile. That means he is choosing to create an inferior version because he doesn't want to do the work. That means he is a lazy developer. Which by the way does not mean he is a lazy person
      A lazy developer is someone who takes the easy way out instead of doing the right thing.. You can do that while still working your ass off.

    16. Re:Fast, easy to navigate. by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

      His argument is that there is more work to also fix it for mobile.

      You seem to be confusing outcomes with modalities.

      Nowhere in TFA is author indicating refusal to support mobile. There is no indication given whether his mobile site needs or does not need to be "fixed for mobile". The argument is entirely AMP vs NOT AMP.

      That means he is choosing to create an inferior version because he doesn't want to do the work. That means he is a lazy developer. That means he is a lazy developer. Which by the way does not mean he is a lazy person
      A lazy developer is someone who takes the easy way out instead of doing the right thing.. You can do that while still working your ass off.

      If the definition of lazy is "someone who takes the easy way out instead of doing the right thing" What is the right thing in this case? Using Google AMP?

      To quote TFA:
      "AMP is being kept alive artificially. AMP survives not because of its merits as a project, but because Google forces websites to either adopt AMP or forego large amounts of potential traffic."

      The objective function from the authors perspective when he says "Google forces websites to either adopt" appears to be page rank and the prospect of ranking algorithms favoring Google created technology over actual organic merit as he sees it.

      This has nothing to do with mobile usability or otherwise providing an inferior product.

      That means he is choosing to create an inferior version because he doesn't want to do the work.

      From what I read of TFA sounds to me more like the price the mob is asking him to pay is too high. "Google forces websites to either adopt AMP or forego large amounts of potential traffic".

      There also seem to be moral objections raised:
      "Google has built their entire empire on the backs of other peopleâ(TM)s effort. People use Google to find content on the web. Google is just a doorman, not the destination. Yet the search engine has epic delusions of grandeur and has started to believe they are the destination, that they are the gatekeepers of the web, that they should dictate how the web evolves."

    17. Re:Fast, easy to navigate. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like GMail

    18. Re:Fast, easy to navigate. by rundgong · · Score: 1

      My assumption is that doing what google has suggested will improve the mobile web page, but you seem to think that it is perfect the way it is and needs no change. Obviously it is impossible for either of us to know the truth. And we might disagree on this even if we knew what site it is referring to.

      There is no indication given whether his mobile site needs or does not need to be "fixed for mobile". The argument is entirely AMP vs NOT AMP.

      It seems to me that the things google suggest would improve the mobile experience. That is what I'm talking about.
      And for the item about social media, I would suggest removing it on both platforms. That would be a good privacy improvement, and make the two versions more coherent.

      Google forces websites to either adopt AMP or forego large amounts of potential traffic.

      It is not clear what effect it will have on page rank. The suggestion itself says "This issue will not affect your appearance on search".
      But I also think that a page that is easy to navigate and does not contain a lot of bloat SHOULD get higher ranking than a page with similar content but is hard to use and slow to load.

    19. Re:Fast, easy to navigate. by Dellsupport123 · · Score: 1

      Sites with "interesting design" NEVER have a focus on ntent.

      When you have a focus on content your site will end up exactly like an AMP page. Fast loading and easy to navigate. Slow loading bloat is only ever present because of intrusive ads and tracking scripts.

      Yes, I can do the same thing after reading your topic thanks for this.

    20. Re:Fast, easy to navigate. by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

      My assumption is that doing what google has suggested will improve the mobile web page, but you seem to think that it is perfect the way it is and needs no change.

      The above assumes things that were never stated. There is no information provided in TFA with which to evaluate any web page. I certainly never stated a positive or negative opinion about his sites.

      Obviously it is impossible for either of us to know the truth. And we might disagree on this even if we knew what site it is referring to.

      Yet you were able to state the author is lazy, angry and has a shitty site without evidence.

      It seems to me that the things google suggest would improve the mobile experience. That is what I'm talking about.

      No, the messages are AMP specific and do not necessarily have anything to do with "mobile experience" which can exist independent of AMP.

      It is not clear what effect it will have on page rank. The suggestion itself says "This issue will not affect your appearance on search".

      Page rank issue raised in TFA has to do with perceived rank disparity of a website that uses AMP vs. a similar website that does not use AMP.

      Rank issues expressed in TFA are unrelated to the screenshots from Google portal. Nobody has made the claim these messages are causing or not causing rank issues.

  16. Fuck No! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Google wants to own all web traffic in the world. Their AI systems need all this data so that your profiles can be used in Advertising that is aimed right at you personally.

    They are Big Brother in all but name.

    This move will make me use Mobile pages even less than I do now.
    What then Google? What is your next move to enslave all of us.

    1. Re: Fuck No! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are they a data seller? It's much much more than mere ads if so.

  17. Of-course by MonopolyKiller · · Score: 2

    AMP is a takeover of the web by a monster. You don't feed the monster, you fight it!

    1. Re: Of-course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It just makes it easer for Google to shadowban a site

  18. I often dislike the mobile version too by KingAlanI · · Score: 2

    I'm used to the layout of the full website, scrolling and zooming is less difficult than finding where the mobile version put something if it had it at all. Similarly, opening a site in a browser whether desktop or mobile version is for the most part easier than using the site's app.

    --
    I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
  19. Why are you asking a question; just say it direc by inking · · Score: 0

    Nobody here cares that for some companies it makes sense economically to use the solution despite being dependent on Google, just as the entire corporate world is already dependent on SharePoint.

  20. Still better than M$FT Amiright? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's people that have been here since the 90's that will excuse any behavior from Google because "fark Microsoft". Google could be putting chips into people's head that monitor their thoughts and there'd be people here saying "well it's better than embrace, extend, extinguish". Google ended up this way because they continually get a free pass from the most rabid Slashdotters and their intellectual progeny.

    1. Re:Still better than M$FT Amiright? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong. We are capable of disliking several corporations simultaneously. Google used to be good, some are simply slower to notice than others.

      Strange to compare Google and Microsoft anyway, such different businesses.

  21. Depends on How Much Framework Cruft they Include by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When you suggest that a fully-featured web application can be made without framework cruft or a 5mb render-blocking bundle, many web developers will look at you like you're crazy.

    The fact remains that, though they may not be widely used or blogged about, and though you won't find many conferences thrown for web standards, there are plenty of web APIs that make factoring modern, maintainable, performant web apps possible:

    - Code Splitting / Lazy-Loading with dynamic import()
    - Reusable UI with Web Components with Shadow Dom (Landing in FF63!)
    - Performant animations with Web Animations API
    - HTTP with fetch API
    - pre-loading with modulepreload links
    - Pushing critical resources with HTTP2 Push
    - Smaller, faster, targeted bundles with differential serving (a la prpl-server)

    And others.

    When you do it right, and leverage the web platform instead of trying to overcome it, you can build snappy, delightful web apps which put the lie to the need for AMP.

  22. Practice KISS by Tablizer · · Score: 2

    Web pages are relatively easy to make load fast if you sacrifice certain things and avoid faddish temptations.

  23. AMP should be embraced by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    AMP pages load faster and they only contain approved ads by Google. You don't have to worry about scams and malware.

    Webmasters are strongly advised to use Google Analytics, there is no better insight to how a website it utilized. Plus, it's the only way to see search referrer details if the visitor came from Google.

    Chrome is the most secure web browser and is updated more frequently than Firefox, Safari, and Edge.

    The fastest public and most stable DNS server is 8.8.8.8. Try it. You'll like it.

    Would you rather have an overpriced iPhone that can only install apps from the App Store? Or choose from a multitude of Android options that fit every budget, usage characteristics, integrate seamlessly with G Suite, AND can install apps from anywhere that you deem fit? Easy choice.

    Speaking of G Suite, if you want email delivered reliably, you better have a gmail.com address.

    Tired of AWS's intentionally over complicated billing practices? Give Google Cloud. Wait, never mind. Google has some work to do there.

    But, for practically everything else Google does it better. That's why it's popular.

    1. Re:AMP should be embraced by Lonewolf666 · · Score: 1

      AMP pages load faster and they only contain approved ads by Google.

      If true, this is an invitation for huge fines for anti-competitive behaviour. Remember the forced bundling of Google apps with the app store? Five billion fine in the EU.

      --
      C - the footgun of programming languages
    2. Re: AMP should be embraced by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Found the paid Google shill. You can't seriously believe that mountain of bullshit, can you?

    3. Re:AMP should be embraced by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AMP pages load faster and they only contain approved ads by Google. You don't have to worry about scams and malware.

      Who cares? I don't fall for scams. I skip slow sites, so no need for "help" viewing them. Ads stops with adblock - be it google ads or others.

      Webmasters are strongly advised to use Google Analytics, there is no better insight to how a website it utilized. Plus, it's the only way to see search referrer details if the visitor came from Google.

      Why would the webmaster care that the visitor came from Google? He cares that the visitor came at all. Besides, google analytics is one of those things ublock axes. No benefit for me that views the page - or anyone in the company that views pages for that matter. So, analytics are blocked as it is a waste of bandwith from the end-user perspective. It is the end-users, and their IT departments that installs ublock - not the webmasters.

    4. Re: AMP should be embraced by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hello Google AI... Next time you post on slashdot, try to be more subtle in your praise, you come across as a total narcissist ;)

    5. Re: AMP should be embraced by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup, you could literally hear the sucking noises as Google started drooling in anticipation of all that personal data.

    6. Re:AMP should be embraced by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      The fastest public and most stable DNS server is 8.8.8.8. Try it. You'll like it.

      What a load of shit. You should know when you're typing it out, and you feel the desire to tell me how I feel about it, that you're full of shit. You can just stop there and accept that it sucks and you don't know why you're choosing it.

      If your DNS is slow enough that you can measure a difference in speed between two DNS servers without blasting them with excess spam, then you have worse problems with your access than that! You should probably be running your own caching DNS server in that case, which should fully mitigate the problem.

      Separately, Chrome does not offer or allow security updates on a separate track than feature updates, so observing the rate of updates and implying that it is more secure just shows you have no clue about security. Chrome sends you propaganda at a higher rate, so you believe it at a higher rate. That's the closest true thing standing around next to your lie!

      You even bungled your attempt at sounding balanced, as the Google Cloud offerings are better for a lot of corporate use cases than what Amazon is offering. Amazon is clearly the market leader, but so what? Amazon's billing isn't "overly complicated," it is based on what services you actually use. It breaks down in ways that make a lot of sense to both sysadmins and accountants.

  24. Or just quit larding up your pages. by shess · · Score: 5, Insightful

    AFAICT, most web properties which would even consider using AMP in the first place have never seen a JavaScript tracking framework they didn't like. Oh, LardScript Analytics? Yes, sign me up! I realize that you can't just deliver my 2k of actual content, you need to brand and stuff with headers and footers and links to follow, but do you really need 20MB spread across 350 resources to do it? Get that down to something reasonable like 50k of dynamic stuff and a couple 100k of highly-cacheable stuff, and AMP would be pointless.

    https://danluu.com/web-bloat/

    1. Re:Or just quit larding up your pages. by mujadaddy · · Score: 1

      True story: about two years ago, Google chatted with our marketing team about AMP, and how it was the bee's knees and would make everything SO FAST for us. They presented the Marketing team with charts showing approximately 2 seconds of page load, and how AMP could cut that down!

      When they got back from California and we showed them that 90% of that 2 seconds was analytics+tracking, they were less "amped"...

      --
      Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur...
      "Force shits upon Reason's back." - Poor Richard's Almanac
  25. Yes. Say no to AMP. by Chas · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Google already has enough of a stranglehold over the web.

    And don't go with the Facebook Instant Articles or Apple News either.

    While AMP is, ostensibly, an open-source project, the fact that it's leadership is in the hands of these corporate advertising giants should give anyone with a lick of sense pause.

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  26. Anyone remember WAP? by mccalli · · Score: 4, Insightful

    AMP just seems like WAP reborn to me, only hosted at Google. Makes it easier for them to parse, but nobody actually wanted it. Should be any easy one to refuse.

  27. MITM by Thaelon · · Score: 1

    So a Man In The Middle attack you opt into?

    --

    Question everything

    1. Re:MITM by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      So a Man In The Middle attack you opt into?

      I can haz cheezeburger? In the middle? Man?

      Their problem is, they haven't convinced anybody that amp is a cheeseburger, it just sounds like buzzword salad.

  28. Fuck Webmasters by Z34107 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Should webmasters "resist Google's push for AMP pages"? Webmasters should really just write mobile websites that don't suck ass, but that's apparently just not something they'll do of their own volition. Most of my mobile browsing is just reading some headlines to kill time, and it's amazing how bad news websites in particular are--laggy scrolling, pop-overs, teleporting ads, teleporting paragraphs, etc. When AMP came out, that shit disappeared from anything I Googled practically overnight--any time I've clicked (tapped, I guess) through to an AMP page, it's loaded quickly, scrolling has worked, and nothing teleports.

    Are there privacy implications? Of course, but they're rather marginal for someone already using Google's search engine, e-mail, news reader, chat programs, and browser. Is AMP necessary to write a good mobile website? Of course not, but writing a good mobile website is just not something a paste-eating webmaster will do unless someone grabs him by the ad dollars, forces him into a padded cell, and takes away so much markup he couldn't possibly fuck up what's left.

    TL;DR AMP exists because webmasters are universally incompetent. If you chucklefucks weren't utter failures, AMP would never have happened.

    --
    DATABASE WOW WOW
    1. Re:Fuck Webmasters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your rant makes it sound like you lost touch with how websites are built 20 years ago.

      Webmasters donâ(TM)t make these decisions.

    2. Re:Fuck Webmasters by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      If you have non-technical people making those decisions, then you don't have a "webmaster," you have PHB and some code monkeys.

      And yes, if you build a site using the best practices from 20 years ago your users will love it! So the question is, is your website something useful, or just some random pap intended as a vehicle to drive ad views? If you don't have real content, then obviously you're not trying to make your users happy, you're trying to exploit them. Sites that have a valid reason for existence often still do have both a technical person making decisions, and also a user-oriented design.

    3. Re:Fuck Webmasters by mujadaddy · · Score: 1

      Webmasters should really just write mobile websites that don't suck ass, but that's apparently just not something they'll do of their own volition.

      And since Google is doing it for them, they will NEVER learn. I don't see this as a good thing.

      If Google has their thumb on the scales, the market will never have the correct information to shutter bad sites.

      --
      Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur...
      "Force shits upon Reason's back." - Poor Richard's Almanac
  29. Dictators -- they ain't what they used to be by perpenso · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Dictators do not work for industry or countries.

    They used to, sometimes. But modern dictators ain't what they used to be. ;-)

    In the Roman Republic (emphasize Republic, after the kings, before the emperors) the dictator had a temporary appointment and absolute authority limited to the territory in crisis, for example a region with active warfare. An interesting story:

    Rome was invaded. The Senate appointed a man named Cincinnatus dictator for six months. On his first day he appointed a military commander and ordered all able bodied males in Rome to report for military service. The next day they marched to meet the enemy. He outmaneuvered the enemy and put them in a very bad position, they begged for mercy. The deal was to execute the top three enemy leaders and grant amnesty to the bulk of the enemy army. Cincinnatus then disbanded his Roman army and resigned the dictatorship. He was dictator for about two weeks and then returned to his farm outside of Rome.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    1. Re:Dictators -- they ain't what they used to be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cincinnatus resigned *before* the end of his term - which was nominally supposed to be six months.

      Then you get the more classical cases of dictators like Fabius Maximus, who held the position a couple of times during the war against Hannibal. He also served as Consul several times in that war, without the usual requirement for a ten-year wait between consulships: but still, during the whole time he regarded himself as a public servant with Cincinnatus's sense of duty, and acted accordingly, refusing to indulge in personal vendettas or partisan politics or make any attempt to gain from the position.

      And then you get dictators like Sulla, who after a civil war declared himself dictator in perpetuity, with an unlimited term, and had thousands of people executed during a reign of terror - some for being political opponents, some for genuine treason, some for personal dislikes, and some merely because they were rich and had stuff that he wanted, and enough money that when the State confiscated their assets some of it would go missing, either to his personal fortune or to reward the people who had turned them in... After a few years of this he apparently got either bored or sick and retired to private life, to die after a last few months of extreme hedonistic debauchery.

      And then Caesar who of course also took power by force and called himself Dictator, but *didn't* impose a reign of terror - although there were heavy taxes - and was noted for showing clemency to his enemies and allowing a due legal process, which convicted some (on real charges: Caesar made a show of not trumping up false charges) and acquitted others - although he did demand an unlimited term for his autocratic rule. This being deemed equivalent to becoming a King in all but name, of course provided Brutus and Cassius with the pretext for assassinating him...

  30. Youtube delete Syrian media channels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This just in, the Youtube accounts of the Syrian Presidency, Ministry of Defense and SANA news agency were deleted.
    https://mobile.twitter.com/hashtag/Youtube?src=hash

    Not only Google sides with certain sides in a war, they do this after the US deploys ships with dozens of cruise missiles and threatens to use them.
    Well done, Google!

    Though we've already seen what happens when the US terrorizes the world with illegal puny missile strikes : nothing much.
    They're to keep the media and population of US/NATO countries in check.
    Dare you denounce the official narrative.

    1. Re:Youtube delete Syrian media channels by bn-7bc · · Score: 1

      This just in, the Youtube accounts of the Syrian Presidency, Ministry of Defense and SANA news agency were deleted.

      So someone (In this case Google) who orovides a free service, decided not to use their resources to host snd distribute content from e cerain source or group of sources. I may be naive, but what us wrong with that? he who pays the bills decides

    2. Re:Youtube delete Syrian media channels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Assad is a fucking dictator, serial torturer and, simply put, human scum. Nobody needs his stupid channels on Youtube.

  31. use Firefox by DrYak · · Score: 2

    Mobile can be just as bad as desktop if not worse since your typical browser on a phone has little to no adblock abilities

    use the Firefox Android app.
    it can install all your usual Web Extensions, e.g. uBlock Origin for ad-blocking, Privacy Badger for tracker blocking, etc.

    (unlike the Chrome Android app, which doesn't have extensions)

    no idea about iOS. but I think I remember all browser apps are forced to rely on the Safari engine, and only provide bookmark sharing, etc.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
    1. Re:use Firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No.

      On iOS use Firefox Focus: it's single-tab-no-frills (not even bookmarks), so welcome to 1999, but it blocks all ads automatically, erases all cookies and browsing history every time it starts, has a prominently displayed "Erase" button in the title bar that erases all cookies and browsing history without you having to restart it, and is d*mn fast!

    2. Re:use Firefox by jimbo · · Score: 1

      Safari on iOS have ad-blocking extensions that can be installed, I'm using one.

      For Android I use Firefox with uBlock Origin. The Samsung browser which is very good also have ad blocking extensions and is available for non-samsung Android phones through the Play store.

    3. Re:use Firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Both options are of course valid, my point however was that by default they do not exist (they aren't installed). From malware blacklists to HSTS and addon update checking, both Firefox and Chrome have their own share of background analytics you still won't see in the application but absolutely can from the network. These are baked into the browsers.

      Don't get me wrong, uBo and uBm are nice but they miss a whole lot due to Google and Mozilla.

  32. Fines and reasons by Lonewolf666 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    There is also the possible angle of anti-competitive behavior.

    This article https://newsdashboard.com/en/how-do-amp-articles-perform-in-the-mobile-serp-for-google-news-oneboxes/ suggests that non-AMP pages are strongly de-emphasized in search rankings (despite Google claiming otherwise, addition mine).
    Now Google was in trouble with the EU before for forcing Android mobile phone producers to pre-install Google Search and browser apps as conditions for licensing its app store.
    I don't see yet for what exact reason Google would get fined this time, as in theory everybody can make AMP sites. Perhaps the owners of competing search engines could complain to the EU.

    --
    C - the footgun of programming languages
  33. Webmasters? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What is this 2001?

  34. AMP breaks page rendering by GabeGhearing · · Score: 4, Informative

    The last straw for me was when I realized how many pages were breaking BECAUSE Google was silently redirecting to AMP versions of pages. Google forces all users that it thinks are on iOS or Android to their AMP variants even though there are TONs of bugs on iOS that Google is not fixing.

    The nonAMP version of the AMP website works better than the AMP version... Check out how AMP breaks scroll-to-top taps on iOS by stuffing everything in extra iframes. Try scrolling around while zoomed in on iOS ... Googleâ(TM)s JavaScript that tries to progressively load content will inevitably screw up and stop you from scrolling far. https://www.google.com/amp/s/w...

  35. Natural reaction to a shitty web by reanjr · · Score: 1

    While there are problems with AMP, the real problem - which AMP does well to combat - is shitty, bloated, ad-vomiting websites.

    1. Re:Natural reaction to a shitty web by mujadaddy · · Score: 1

      1. Promote shitty bloated ad-vomiting websites.
      2. Claim the web experience is broken.
      3. Insist your proprietary technology which detects & catalogs 100% of the web experience is the solution!
      4. Profit!
      5. Goto 1...

      --
      Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur...
      "Force shits upon Reason's back." - Poor Richard's Almanac
  36. Why? It's and open standard ... by Qbertino · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ... and, AFAICT, a good and useful one.

    Why should I resist that?

    So AMP is a reduced HTML standard to make mobile websites load faster and less bloated that the bullshit we see today spewed into the public web by people who can't tell a server from a client and shouldn't be let near a keyboard of a connected computer, let alone in the lead position of some web project. Pagecalls weigh in twice to three times as heavy as an entire Amiga operating system these days. If your would delivered such a thing 18 years ago people would've beat you up and for good reasons too.

    So Google wants to cache my website with AMP? Nice. Go right ahead. If they update the content in their cache whenever I do I'm all for it. The more I can tell clients that their crappy bloated piece of shit they call a website is going to be deranked into unseen depths of Google if they don't use sensible unbroken web presentations, AMP is a good thing and it will be a part of my optimisation strategy for professional websites.

    --
    We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
    1. Re:Why? It's and open standard ... by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      You seem really, really confused about the technical details.

      It isn't a cache. That's just a buzzword they put in to trick idiots. A cache returns the thing cached, so you don't have to look it up again. A proxy that alters the data for each user is not a cache at all. Even if they write the word "cache" in the name.

    2. Re:Why? It's and open standard ... by robfrawley · · Score: 1

      You seem really, really confused about the technical details. [AMP] isn't a cache. [...] A cache returns the thing cached [and a] proxy alters the data for each user [and] is not a cache at all.

      It's always such a treasure to find someone who pokes fun at another user's technical knowledge only to absolutely fail at their own attempt at an explanation. Slashdot really is a mythical place, where users feel entitled to talk down to their fellow readers regarding topics they have absolutely no fundamental knowledge of.

      First lets look deeper into your understanding of the most basic of terms: "cache" and "proxy". You do realize that a "cache" and a "proxy" aren't mutually exclusive, right? There are, in fact, proxy servers that also perform caching responsibilities (making such implementations both a "cache" and a "proxy"). It is entirely common for software to act in both compacities, or for two or more discrete services to work in tandem to provide said set of features. As it doesn't appear you have any first-hand experience working with this types of software, you may want to reference Wikipedia's articles on caches and proxies before taking another stab at commenting about AMP or any similar technologies.

      Regarding AMP specifically, your statements are again incorrect. Don't take my word for it though, you can check all of the following resources to verify my assertions, if you feel so inclined: [1], [2], [3], [4], and [5]. To save you some time, here is a brief writeup from the developer documentation regarding the caching mechanics of AMP:

      When a user requests an AMP document from the Google AMP Cache, the cache automatically requests updates in order to be able to serve fresh content for the next user once the content has been cached. With this model, updates to AMP documents propagate automatically and quickly; few users will see the non-updated version after your update. The cache follows a "stale-while-revalidate" model. It uses the origin's caching headers, such as Max-Age, as hints in deciding whether a particular document or resource is stale. When a user makes a request for something that is stale, that request causes a new copy to be fetched, so that the next user gets fresh content. To limit the amount of load it generates for publisher sites, the Google AMP Cache considers any document fresh for at least 15 seconds, and any resource fresh for at least 1 minute. Note that those numbers may change in the future, as we tune the cache for optimum balance between freshness and load on publisher sites.

      -https://developers.google.com/amp/cache/overview#google-amp-cache-updates

      It is important to note that AMP doesn't require use of Google's cache component. Those looking to implement the AMP specification have a broad array of choices regarding behavior of their content.

      --
      Rob Frawley 2nd
  37. Australias broken digital innovation. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In Australia our congresscritters want the public at large to use 'The Internet' instead of calling up or walking in in-person - It does not like to employ anyone, and besides it is nt paying you to wait 4 hours for a phone call to be answered.

    Enter MyGov. Designed by consultants for a Microsoft stack platform. Oh, we will skin it through ABC software, and it will magically work on IOT and mobile things.
    Now AMP will make the mobile side of MyGov a trainwreck, because lots of Java is in there,
    If I interpret it, FORMS will be the most broken item.

    Outstanding Google. Now they will have to employ H1B's and temp workers by the 1000's.

  38. Objection by Artem+S.+Tashkinov · · Score: 1

    the page in question simply becomes AMP-invalid and is ejected from the AMP cache -- and subsequently from Google's results

    I'm not sure this statement is true.

  39. Definitely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    AMP pages plainly suck and are difficult to share without all the google crap infesting the url, hence googles latest push saying oh people can't figure out this url thing... Yup it is all about grabbing control of the content and making sure google always gets what google wants

  40. resist everything google related by NikeHerc · · Score: 1

    The subject says it all. Google is neither in charge of the internet nor trustworthy. Resist everything they suggest.

    --
    Circle the wagons and fire inward. Entropy increases without bounds.
    1. Re:resist everything google related by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      If they're not in charge, why would you need to "resist?" Just say no, man. Just say no.

    2. Re:resist everything google related by NikeHerc · · Score: 1

      If they're not in charge, why would you need to "resist?"

      Google thinks they are in charge. They need to be persuaded they aren't.

      --
      Circle the wagons and fire inward. Entropy increases without bounds.
    3. Re:resist everything google related by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Nonsense. There is a guy on the street corner who thinks he's Jesus. My spiritual freedom does not require me to convince him he's wrong. I can actually just ignore it, because he doesn't have magic powers.

      Same here. If they're not in charge, nobody needs to tell them. They can learn about it, or not, who cares?

  41. I remain to be convinced... by QuietLagoon · · Score: 2

    ... that google's interests are aligned with my interests. Currently, I see little, if any, benefit, and a whole lot of downside. I'll pass.

    1. Re:I remain to be convinced... by BeanThere · · Score: 1

      AMP is basically an attempt to do 'embrace and extend' the open Web with their own replacement 'ecosystem' (which is 'on paper' supposedly open, but in practice it's basically 'their ecosystem'). This is a classic page out the book of the old Microsoft. They're effective trying to replace the Web (with its pesky competitors OS-wise, software-wise, advertising-wise) with 'GoogleWeb'.

      Anyone who can't see the serious problems here, lacks imagination.

      The more webmasters who join and make their websites AMP-compliant, the more we help Google take over, and the more power we hand them to crush anyone who doesn't join (e.g. through lowering the rankings that don't support it). They'll make billions, webmasters get whatever they're paid to do the site.

      So as for whether or not to go along with it, well, we all need to pay the rent, so it's up to each person to decide you either sell out to the devil or stick to your values.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    2. Re:I remain to be convinced... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This and a thousand times this! Can't understand why you haven't been moderated up to "+5 All you need to know on the matter"!?

  42. If google wants websirtes to load faster... by QuietLagoon · · Score: 1

    ... then google should do something about all the slow trackers on the websites, including the painfully slow site known as google fonts.

  43. To have pages that load fast in mobile or other... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To have pages that load fast in mobile or other browsers, you do NOT need google's help, you just need to write pages that load fast. When I build, I target 30 seconds at the outside, with top fold within 6 seconds. Easy peasy.

  44. Don't do AMP, but follow AMP rules by GuB-42 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    AMP has two parts. One is a set of very sensible rules for doing good websites. The second is a way for Google to take control of the web.

    So what you should do is simple. Make a website that is compatible with AMP. Then remove all Google stuff. You will end up with a website that is independent and fast. And when you are at it, apply the same principles to your destop website.

    1. Re:Don't do AMP, but follow AMP rules by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I did exactly this. My non-AMP pages are now faster than AMP ever was.

  45. Re: Depends on How Much Framework Cruft they Inclu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This. A thousand times this. You can build a killer site with current technologies that is performance oriented that negates needing AMP at all.

  46. Directly insert their add stream by oldgraybeard · · Score: 1

    "Google to perform their own optimisations to further enhance user experience"

    I read this as inserting their targeted paid ads. Don't buy from this site, buy from one of our paid ad clients.

    Just my 2 cents ;)

  47. Will they? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, they should. But will they?

  48. Re:To have pages that load fast in mobile or other by omnichad · · Score: 3, Informative

    6 seconds is not fast. 2-3 seconds for body content or the user bounces. And even that's a long time. If the whole page isn't done loading in six seconds, I'll be suspecting malware or mining JavaScript.

  49. yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    YES

    Google is not the internet, they want to start playing SEO hostage games 'use our shit or we will tank your site ranking', then they can go fuck themselves.

    I've had enough of google and their horse shit. I used to love them back in the day, now I wouldn't piss on them if they were on fire.

    I am a web developer, and I won't use their garbage. I won't use their analytics, I won't use the tag manager, I won't use their anything, they can eat my mother fucking ass with a dairy queen spoon.

  50. Can't zoom, can't read it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    AMP is unviewable content to me. I need to be able to zoom the page.

  51. ...a shark named AOL by morethanapapercert · · Score: 2
    This really reminds of the days of AOL at its peak. AOL tried really hard to give its userbase the impression that their network of sites was the Internet. Back then I knew at least a handful of people who honestly thought what they were getting with their AOL account was the Internet in its entirety. Many of those that at least knew there was a vast world beyond AOL shunned it, fearing the "wild west" that was the Internet in those days.

    On the other hand, everyone who was clued in Internet-wise, hated AOL and everything it stood for. They were frequently and viciously attacked for their monopolistic practices. Is Google in the middle of jumping the shark here?

    --
    I need a wheelchair van for my son. Help me get the word out. https://www.gofundme.com/wheelchair-van-for-jj
  52. Re: Registered /.ers review of the Win64 model by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "souled-out"

    I quite like that APK.

  53. "What profiteth a man..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "What profiteth a man to gain the universe if he loses his soul?"

    * I see you had the sensitivity to understand - that's good...

    APK

    P.S.=> Quote a band called QUEENSRYCHE: "Now I see the PAYOFFS everywhere I look - WHO DO YOU TRUST, WHEN EVERYONE's A CROOK?"... apk

  54. Sure an "open" standard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everyone who worked at government knows how to write an "open" call for bids that in reality only allows one vendor. Same thing here. Letting Google control HTML standard is insane. If Google wanted to help loading speed, they could rank according to speed, there's no need to force an EEE standard on the web.

  55. Re:EXACTAMUNDO on centralized tracking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hosts file blocking only works when the applications use your system resolver. Surprise surprise, there is an increasing number of them which do not. Wanna guess who? Google of course is one.

    There are other issues with using such files too, mostly the memory and cpu now required to do simple lookups. Unlike a proper dns server, the file has to be read in and processed for each request.

    Unless you're running an intercepting proxy/webserver as well, those applications will be constantly trying to connect although you won't now see it from the network. That CPU is wasted battery life. Guess who is the biggest culprit? Yep, GOOGLE again followed closely by Samsung's own bloatware THEN third party analytics (Samsung hone, ymmv).

  56. It works for security, bigtime... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "It's working: Neville... it's working!" See subject & results from THIS month alone https://it.slashdot.org/commen... & https://it.slashdot.org/commen... + https://it.slashdot.org/commen... + https://it.slashdot.org/commen... that's only recently while I've been on Linux (few months now only) & 100's of times vs. MANY other botnets/malwares etc. in the past circa 2006-early 2018 while I was on Windows: There's BULLSHIT & doing nothing pessimsm & then? There's CONCRETE VISIBLE UNDENIABLE REALITY (see those links as proof).

    DNS = BLOATWARE loaded w/ security issues (Kaminsky flaw REDIRECT poisoning for example).

    P.S.=> As far as anything doing it's OWN resolution? It's breaking HOW things are supposed to work: IP stack is supposed to do resolution, nothing else, Windows USERMODE slow cache is broken in larger hosts files & has security issues too & witness FireFox bs - WTF is a browser doing its OWN resolutions for? Easy to turn off though on all of them e.g. about:config

    network.dnsCacheEntries
    network.trr.mode to 5 (SHUTS IT OFF)
    network.trr.uri (set to 208.67.222.222) ... apk

  57. It works for SPEED bigtime too... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hosts = FASTER vs. FAULTY w/ large hosts files USERMODE SLOWER dnscache service (in Windows) by FAR due to KERNELMODE faster/more cpu priority given diskcaching subsystem in use caching hosts.

    MY METHOD'S PURE KERNELMODE SUPERIOR (superior speed due to more CPU given in) - no usermode slow buggy bs ILLOGIC-LOGIC of "Bolt-on-'MoAr'" that's FULL OF SECURITY ISSUES (DNS/Antivirus OR crippled by default slower usermode EASILY DETECTED & BLOCKED browser addons).

    (Hosts blocking ads ALONE assures more speed than a dnscache does also LET ALONE avoiding remote DNS (or even local over LAN) lookup delay + usermode slow faulty caches)

    APK

    P.S.=> YOU LOSE AGAIN in addition to HOW hosts work for security vs. OTHER loaded w/ SECURITY ISSUES DNS & Antivirus here too https://tech.slashdot.org/comm...

  58. Lastly: I've seen malware do its own DNS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lastly: I've seen malware do its own DNS requests (again, breaking how things are SUPPOSED to work) & I would be willing to BET Joogle AMP does too, ala what was said here by others https://tech.slashdot.org/comm... & as far as the REST of what he said? The MAIN sponsor/financier of SLASHDOT? JOOGLE! They have been @ me & my posts ever since 2012 when I re-released my hostfile engine & they ARE TRYING to "change the rules" CHEAT on how things are SUPPOSED to work online (as they're unable to defeat my points on hosts as things are, currently).

    * They're BOGUS...

    APK

    P.S.=> What more can one EXPECT from jews? apk

  59. Why not? by Karmashock · · Score: 1

    Everyone seems so eager to destroy all the open platforms and give all the power to a few arbitrary proprietary systems dictated by a literal handful of people... what could possibly go wrong?

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    1. Re:Why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a literal handful of people

      You must have enormous hands. Much, much, larger than the hands that Trump wants us to think he has. Even NBA basketball stars would have a hard time holding more than one person in their hands literally if that person is more than a couple months old.

      (in other words you may want to look up the meaning of literally. it means to be literal; to express something exactly as it actually is).

    2. Re:Why not? by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      CEO of google, CEO of Twitter, CEO of Facebook, CEO of Apple, CEO of Reddit...

      Good day, sir.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    3. Re:Why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are your hands really large enough to literally hold those four adults inside them? You said a

      literal handful

      That means fitting those five people inside your hands physically. I would expect that typing on a normal keyboard would be incredibly difficult if your hands were that large. For that matter I would expect that a normal sized human - or even a giant human - would have severe blood circulation issues if their hands were that large and still had any degree of dexterity.

      In other words your use of "literal" might fit with the way that some TV celebrities use it, but it was not factually or linguistically correct within the parameters of the English Language.
       
      Literal != Figurative

  60. DRM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    AMP = DRM = WEBP

  61. Useful AC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow, the russians do everything.
    They probably even stole that missing sock from my dryer.

    What evidence do you have that the Russians stole that missing sock from your dryer?

    That the Russian state intervened in the Brexit vote, has long be documented. This cannot seriously be news to you!? Next thing you'll express surprise at the suggestion that the Russians may have interfered in the US election: "Wow, the russians do everything, They probably even stole the rock I've been living under."

    1. Re:Useful AC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the Russian state intervened in the Brexit vote, has long be documented

      It sounds like they are suspected of supporting Brexit. They always seem to choose the right decision, luckily.

    2. Re:Useful AC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They always seem to choose the right decision, luckily.

      It's not necessarily the decisions themselves that matter most (although in the case of the Brexit decision a weaker UK is obviously in Russia's national interest). It's that Americans (or Europeans) tear themselves up about those decisions that really serves to undermine Western democracies. That's why the good folk of Savushkina Street play both sides of the park of course.

  62. Google's only fixing the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd you didn't fill your site with 70 trackers and ad bloatware, this wouldn't be a problem

  63. Target was about ads. by DrYak · · Score: 1

    my point however was that by default they do not exist (they aren't installed).

    It might be good to refresh the memory:

      - the whole Firefox (back when it used to be called Phoenix) was started on the purpose to be a small lightweight browser with only bare bone functionality and all the bells-and-whistles being in extensions (XUL back then, web extensions nowadays), in opposition to the giant Creature Feep that Netscape was becoming.
      - Chrome began also with the idea of being light-weight.

    Not having too many features out-of-the box is part of the mission in these browser.

    (Hence all the backlash against mozilla's Pocket : thes should belong in an extension, not a core feature).

    I find it perfectly normal that adblocking is handled by an extension.
    (I would have found even better if Pocket, or even the whole Weave/Sync infrastructure was in extensions. But at least the later is user-configurable to use own servers)

    From malware blacklists to HSTS and addon update checking, both Firefox and Chrome have their own share of background analytics you still won't see in the application but absolutely can from the network.

    The above post was simply about mobile browsers lacking adblocking capability compared to desktop ones.

    I was simply pointing out that this is restricted to mobile Chrome which lacks any extension capabilities.

    Whereas mobile Firefox has the exact same extension capability on Android as on any desktop OS, and thus all the ad-blocking capability you're used to desktop also work on the mobile, and thus the "Mobile app is worse than desktop application due to lack of ad-blocking" doesn't apply.

    It had absolutely nothing do to with any remote tracking possibility inherent to list/extensions/whatever update mechanism.

    If you're into *that* level of paranoia (don't get me wrong, my intention isn't to make jokes. There are legitimate reasons for wanting this), you'd better using Tor browser with the Tor network.

    And add some host-blocking solution just to be sure.

    Don't get me wrong, uBo and uBm are nice but they miss a whole lot due to Google and Mozilla.

    uBo misses a lot, for the simple reason that it's targetted specifically for ads to begin. (The subject from above).

    before dwelving into the ability to see you appearing into mozilla's logs whenever you update lists/extensions/etc., there's a lot of other stuff.

      - things like Privacy Badger which are specifically to block tracker inside web-pages (all this stupid "Like" Facebook buttons)
      - things like DecentralEyes, which are specifically to block you from appearing in the logs whenever a page needs to download a common javascript toolkit from a 3rd party CDN.
      - things like NoScript, which give you a very fine grained control on any piece of Javascript.

    etc. (and by the way to go back to the discussion : they all also work on mobile Firefox on android).

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  64. EXACTAMUNDO on centralized tracking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: & why I block it via APK Hosts File Engine 2.0++ 64-bit for Linux/BSD h t t p : / / a p k . i t - m a t e . c o . u k / A P K H o s t s F i l e E n g i n e F o r L i n u x . z i p

    Yields more security/speed/reliability/anonymity vs. any 1 solution (99% of threats use hostnames vs. IP address most firewalls use) more efficiently/FASTER + NATIVELY 4 less.

    Vs. "Bolt on 'MoAr' illogic-logic" slowing you hosts speed u up 2 ways: Adblocks + Hardcode fav. sites u spend most time @ vs. competition loaded w/ security bugs (DNS/AntiVir) + overheads slowing u (messagepass 'souled-out' to advertisers easily detected & blocked addons + firewall filtering drivers) & their complexity leads to exploitation!

    * ONLY 1 of its kind in GUI 4 Linux/BSD!

    (Better vs. Windows model in speed/efficiency/merge)

    APK

    P.S.=> Protects vs. script trackers/ads/DNS request tracking + redirect poisoned or downed DNS/botnets/malware downloads/malcript/email malicious payloads... apk

  65. Registered /.ers review of the Win64 model by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your software is just fine - well written, functional... I'm going to continue using the Host File Engine by mmell February 17, 2017

    Your premise that hostfiles are a good way to deal with advertising and malvertising is quite valid - by JazzLad April 20, 2016

    his hosts program is actually pretty good by xenotransplant August 10 2015

    his hosts tool is actually useful for those cases in which one does indeed want to locally block stuff outright while consuming minimum system resources by alexgieg September 25 2015

    I like your host file system by Karmashock September 09 2015

    that APK guy, I use his host file by rogoshen1 Tuesday March 03, 2015

    I personally use a HOSTS file blocker produced from a genius called APK by 110010001000 October 27 2017

    * Linux model = faster/more efficient!

    APK

    P.S.=> APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-1 32/64-bit for Windows https://www.google.comsearch?s...

  66. Speechless. by mujadaddy · · Score: 1

    I can't believe what I'm reading here.

    Ads are dangerous. They often contain malware. Google is by far the best when it comes to checking ads for malware and limiting them to text and a malware scanned link. Also, you can really easily block them. So AMP pages are great if you like your privacy.

    Why does Google need to be involved in my http queries at all? It's not altruism.

    And from the webmaster's perspective, AMP is a "standard" which only helps Google, NOT ANYONE ELSE.

    If "Ads are dangerous", why should anyone trust Pusher No. 1? The company has come a long way from Not-An-Ad-Company.

    --
    Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur...
    "Force shits upon Reason's back." - Poor Richard's Almanac
    1. Re:Speechless. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      You have a choice for your ad-supported content. Ads from random sources that you don't trust and which may contain malware, or ads from Google that are at least safe.

      Oh, but you have an ad blocker? Well it's much easier to consistently block Google ads with zero side effects than it is to block every other random ad server in existence.

      I'm not saying it's ideal, but given the choice I'll take the safe and easy to block Google ads.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:Speechless. by mujadaddy · · Score: 1

      You have a choice for your ad-supported content

      I choose the road less traveled. 'Your' site doesn't get to write cookies by default on my machine. Your 2nd- and 3rd-party content does not load. If your site has little utility at this browsing level, it is a value judgment for me, one which your site will usually lose.

      Your initial debate conditions assume that the difficulty in reaching site content is something which I have to endure. We would do well in this industry to treat web content much more like a luxury than a necessity.

      --
      Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur...
      "Force shits upon Reason's back." - Poor Richard's Almanac
    3. Re:Speechless. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      That's fair enough. I do restrict some sites to no third party content and cookies etc, but I find that also breaks a lot of sites that I need. Things like online banking, booking flights, property search and so forth.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    4. Re:Speechless. by mujadaddy · · Score: 1
      I have a set of friends in the industry who've chuckled at my self-hobbling ways for years.

      They chuckle much less these days.

      online banking

      My bank's site works with only "*.{bank}.com" cookies. No 3rd party scripts, and only "{bank}media.com" imagery.



      And this is the whole point: we are the customers. We are not the fucking product.

      --
      Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur...
      "Force shits upon Reason's back." - Poor Richard's Almanac
  67. Nope. by mujadaddy · · Score: 1

    Why? It's and open standard... and, AFAICT, a good and useful one.

    Useful for who? The utility it provides is to Google, not the user.

    There may come a day when I let Google tell me how I want to utilize HTTP.

    But today is not that day.

    --
    Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur...
    "Force shits upon Reason's back." - Poor Richard's Almanac
  68. Re:To have pages that load fast in mobile or other by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nowadays 1 second is standard. But the way many sites get there is by async content, which loads the page instantly, but shit pops all over the place in the next 1-2 seconds. This, IMO, is worse than the page simply taking 2-3 seconds, then working normally.

    One can't even click the far right dropdown arrow on Facebook (to get to ad tools) without waiting for the options to load.

  69. Double Standard? by hiroshimarrow · · Score: 1

    Why is someone on Mac Observer adding complaint to Google's Walled Garden architecture? I thought Mac users were used to and loved their walled gardens, so why complain when a new one pops up?

  70. Google - AMP + Bing + etc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0