News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Web by Google (TM) by kristopolous on Sunday August 16, 2020 @09:57AM (#24177802)
I don't know if you remember the mobile news web around 2015 or so.

Content would furiously jump around as the page was overcome by advalanches, videos on autoplay would pop up in all the corners, as you scrolled, the page would often break at paragraphs as even more videos would load, secretly sliding in the content like some infestation. If you tried to highlight text to copy, you'd see interstitial popups of yet again more ads and then discover your clipboard was populated with ad after ad.

Then when you copied the URL, it was full of fingerprints and UID hashes from all these providers so it was hundreds of excess bytes, usually leaking personal information. You'd have to chop it off or just give up and share the extra tracking garbage at the end of the url

And this was essentially all of the local news sites. They were indistinguishable from the click here to download virus typosquatting sites. It was horrific. Often loading an article would lock up and crash the browser, it was totally completely unusable. This was the post-flash web that we all desperately wanted, here ya go!

I really don't like amp, but it has fixed that problem so effectively that you have to remind people in detail that it actually once existed.

Re:Web by Google (TM) by alangibson on Sunday August 16, 2020 @10:06AM (#24177894)
Indeed. I'm not saying there were no issues driving AMP. But there are many possible solutions that did not require Google hijacking your urls.
Re:Web by Google (TM) by kristopolous on Sunday August 16, 2020 @10:19AM (#24178030)
Ok I'll bite, there's a number of other pre-amp sites that basically scraped the content and then displayed it in a nice form for reading. Those did the same solution.

The only way around a centralized solution is a magical "disable garbage" ad block extension in the browser, and those also exist, and are maintained once again, by a centralized group.

Ok so another solution, just stop indexing or boosting the garbage sites forcing them to change, that's what amp does yet again.

I agree that I want some greener pasture alternative from over yonder, but what?

Re:Web by Google (TM) by alangibson on Sunday August 16, 2020 @10:44AM (#24178214)
None of the options you mentioned force sites to spend money maintaining a second version of their site, so they're all better than AMP.

I also think you have an exotic definition centralization.

> sites

Sites is plural, so this is not a centralized solution. There are multiple competing options.

> just stop indexing or boosting the garbage sites forcing them to change, that's what amp does yet again.

No it doesn't. AMP is faster, so AMP sites get boosted based on being faster. It's an indirect effect, at least according to Google. Google could have stopped at applying a big penalty to dog slow sites. No lock-in promoting tech required.

There was a huge missed opportunity for Firefox here to do some aggressive garbage removal in these sorts of pages. They'd probably have a much bigger share now if they had

Re:Web by Google (TM) by skinnymuch on Sunday August 16, 2020 @10:11AM (#24177949)
Why mobile news web of 2015? I don’t use amp. Is what you’re saying an issue now too or?
Re:Web by Google (TM) by kristopolous on Sunday August 16, 2020 @10:22AM (#24178060)
I remember it as totally unmanageable from around 2014-2016 ... Often it'd just crash the browser after about 30 seconds. It was a running gag at the office.