There's nothing I can do it about it, but I tend to hate it.

If my name is Mike and someone powerful calls me Chucklehead, I will have to start answering to that name in order to continue doing business.

But what REALLY concerns me is if a year later, that powerful someone calls someone ELSE Chucklehead.

So, if I search for something on reddit, I already learned to use duck duck go. Cause then I don't have to edit url to get rid of amp part not scroll up and down for that link.

Isn't that just a protection racket?

Your link is being shared from Google's search results and their application, so you might not like it but they have every right to control how it's displayed. Is it difficult to accept traffic from an AMP link? Are there technical downsides besides being called a name you don't want?

The "point" of the web was to serve humans, not machines. If we wanted to serve machines, we'd just throw binary blobs around, which would be orders of magnitude more efficient.

That said, I still have a bunch of "ancient" tech magazines that had directories of URLs for (then) popular websites, grouped by category. That's how we found things then.

People forget that there was a world before Google.

so, about that

    4.6 Locators are human transcribable.

   Users can copy Internet locators from one medium to another (such as
   voice to paper, or paper to keyboard) without loss or corruption of
   information.  This process is not required to be comfortable.

accessing the URL is listed as one of the fundamental use case for them, and for good reasons, detailed elsewhere in the same rfc

You (often) can copy a page title into a client (Google) and expect it to find the right resource. This is usually done with articles, etc.

Even your comment provides a perfect example - you didn't link to RFC 1736, but the text "Locators are human transcribable" is unique enough that the first Google result is correct.

So you didn't have to provide a URL to lead someone to this page, just 'enough' unique text for it to be findable.

Which is kind of amazing - and maybe not what the original RFC intended.

none of the result here are pointer to the source I've used

sure the content is the same, but the resource isn't, if anything this demonstrates how easy is to misled a user, directing him on a different resource thinking it's the same.

compare with stack overflow result:

https://i.imgur.com/maJi47G.png

luckily prominent sites get pushed on top of the result queue (had to cut it because it was submersed by advertisement) but the attack vector is evident.

So web was designed with using Google in mind? woot

You can type it into Google, though...

But on another note, it will be the day when your mother (or anyone else for that matter) types in 'www.walmart.com' and actually goes to 'www.target.com' (names taken from other examples that I've seen on Twitter).

I made a new webpage for my father, and my mother cannot open it, since google does not know about that and there are no links to it.

There is unfortunately a tax on stupidity, and in this day and age it is paid with one's personal data to multinationals.

Making people type in URLs is not a key feature of the web. Letting people interact with their various signifiers has always been.

Too many people involved in UX and product and commentary have forgotten that "don't make me think" doesn't mean "don't let me think."

The URL is a set of half a dozen affordances.

Two words: corporate greed. It's so much easier to persuade and herd them to where they can be "monetised" when they don't know how things work, nor can't figure out how and where to learn.

Same as I'm not going to type a long path to a file on my file browser or CLI, I'm not going to type the full, character-by-character URL. But being able to see the path also provides extremely useful information.