This data is scraped automatically and may be incorrect.
Title
Google AMP Can Go To Hell
Authors
Captain Website, Sam, Barry Adams, Nyingi Maina, Alex Denne, VL, Rob Saddler, Dave, Tizio, Robert (Jamie) Munro, Daniel M, Iván Rojas, Gray, Matthew Graybosch, Miguel Lomeli, Kent, Emmanuel, Oliver, Keith Devon, Socrates, Prov94, Joey Hoer, Niklas Poslovski, Jacob Adler, Nate, Doc Sheldon, Dave Mullen, Y
I feel like this should be a violation of competition law given Google's big market share in search engines.
Google is also the reason AMP sees any kind of adoption at all. Basically, Google has forced websites – specifically news publishers – to create AMP versions of their articles. For publishers, AMP is not optional; without AMP, a publisher’s articles will be extremely unlikely to appear in the Top Stories carousel on mobile search in Google.
I feel like this should be a violation of competition law given Google's big market share in search engines.
Worth bearing in mind that Google would also like the URL bar to disappear entirely as well, replacing it with a certificate of trust. They spoke about this recently at the AMP conference this...
Worth bearing in mind that Google would also like the URL bar to disappear entirely as well, replacing it with a certificate of trust.
They spoke about this recently at the AMP conference this year. Video. Where the URL would remain, but have no real-world connection to the group of servers supplying you with content. You'll see a non-google domain, with a non-google SSL certificate... But it may well be being delivered by Google.
Y'know... I've been putting up with a lot of Google's bullshit over the years because I'm a lazy fuck and a creature of habit, but the top-level article and this conversation have officially...
Y'know... I've been putting up with a lot of Google's bullshit over the years because I'm a lazy fuck and a creature of habit, but the top-level article and this conversation have officially pushed me over the edge. Thanks for that.
// TODO: Break up with Google, lawyer up, delete Facebook, hit the gym.
Not google-specific, but probably the hardest thing for me to move away from (and the main reason I haven't cut google) would be my gmail account, which I use as my primary address. It's not so...
Not google-specific, but probably the hardest thing for me to move away from (and the main reason I haven't cut google) would be my gmail account, which I use as my primary address. It's not so much a problem of finding a provider, but I've moved emails before and it was an absolute nightmare and took ages because there's so much stuff tied to it.
My advice is to not do it all at once. Start with the things you use or value most. Keep your Gmail account around for password recovery of some account you will remember in the future. You can...
My advice is to not do it all at once. Start with the things you use or value most. Keep your Gmail account around for password recovery of some account you will remember in the future.
You can set an auto-reply message for incoming e-mail in which you inform the sender that you have a new address. And you can add a signature to each of your outgoing e-mails informing the recipients that you will be moving.
Some new providers allow pulling e-mail in from other addresses. This way you can access your Gmail mail from your new account. I would advise against this, as it can get messy and will not motivate you to complete the transition.
If you don't yet use a password manager and unique passwords for your accounts, this is a good time to start doing that as well; If you're already going through accounts settings to change your e-mail address, you might as well change your passwords at the same time.
There's no way it's going to be quick and easy, unfortunately. Google knows this and is counting on it to keep people trapped in their very comfortable but abusive environment.
Edited to add: Please sign out of Gmail when you're done with it. Or better yet: use a dedicated browser for Google products. As long as you're logged into a Google account session, they tie whatever they can track to your account/identity.
Could you recommend some free email provider? I've heard about ProtonMail, but it's free version looks very limited, especially with only 3 folders and 500MB of storage, which I'm not sure for how...
Could you recommend some free email provider? I've heard about ProtonMail, but it's free version looks very limited, especially with only 3 folders and 500MB of storage, which I'm not sure for how long would it be enough. I cannot spend any money on this, as I don't have any bank account yet.
If you don't yet use a password manager and unique passwords for your accounts, this is a good time to start doing that as well
I've never used password manager, as I have hard time trusting apps enough to give it all my passwords, but I've thought about doing so. I use one of three passwords for the small random websites you use once or twice, one complex password for all my computers, one complex password for my mail and another complex password for my (now disabled) facebook account. I'm not sure if I'm actually willing to use app, especially when I'm not sure if I don't have some malware on my computer which could get these passwords somehow. Do you think people would benefit from password manager even if they use complex unique passwords for each important account?
I would still recommend paying for your e-mail service, but I understand that this is not an option for you right now. See if the others in this list work for you:...
I would still recommend paying for your e-mail service, but I understand that this is not an option for you right now. See if the others in this list work for you: https://www.privacytools.io/#email
I use one of three passwords for the small random websites you use once or twice
Whatever you do, do not re-use passwords. Today the most likely threat is that one service you use is hacked, that your password is decrypted and then used to try to log in to accounts on different services.
If your threat model does not include people in your own home, if you consider your home a safe place, it's not a bad idea to write your passwords down. I know this goes against what we've been taught for years, but it really isn't a bad strategy. Just don't write them on a post-it stuck to your screen.
To create unique, hard to crack passwords without using a generator try the diceware technique: http://world.std.com/%7Ereinhold/diceware.html
If you speak more than one language, you can shake things up by using words from several different languages.
I've never used password manager, as I have hard time trusting apps enough to give it all my passwords
It's good to be skeptical. Cloud-based password managers are convenient, but not always the best idea. Offline ones aren't always convenient, as you'll have to find a way to make your encrypted password database file accessible on all your devices and keep it synchronized.
I use KeepassXC myself and store the database on a private server, but it is encrypted well so you could even store it on Google Drive or Dropbox. You could also store a copy on a USB drive.
If there is malware on your computer that captures passwords, it doesn't really matter where you store them. They will be captured when you use them.
The benefit of a password manager is that you can generate and store truly unique passwords for each account. You can easily change your passwords when you need to, and you can use very long passwords without having to remember them. The only password you need to remember is the one that opens your password database. Or you could get a YubiKey or other FIDO key to secure your database with. (Do not get the Chinese-manufactured ones recommended by Google.)
That's where I was a few years ago, and here's the thing: use a free/libre, preferably audited, password manager. If it's audited and free, then you really aren't putting trust into anyone. If...
I've never used [a] password manager, as I have [a] hard time trusting apps enough to give it all my passwords, ...
That's where I was a few years ago, and here's the thing: use a free/libre, preferably audited, password manager. If it's audited and free, then you really aren't putting trust into anyone. If it's not audited, but it's free, you can at least trust that your passwords are safe from the average attacker. Check out Keepass and Bitwarden.
https://www.passwordstore.org/ Zero trust required. It does require some learning. I use pass to keep things sync'd between my laptop / phone / desktop using git (keybase). All the data is...
Zero trust required. It does require some learning. I use pass to keep things sync'd between my laptop / phone / desktop using git (keybase). All the data is encrypted clientside using gpg. If this is more than you want to bite off, I understand. If you lose those keys then your passwords are toast. Ultimately though, that's what taking ownership of data requires, unfortunately.
No, not according to this: Sources: https://support.google.com/mail/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=61177&topic=2382753&ctx=topic...
No, not according to this:
Google [..] has confirmed to Webwereld that it does not recycle unused accounts. Users can delete their accounts, but this "won't free up your username. Once you delete your Gmail address, you won't be able to use that same username (username@gmail.com) in the future," Google says on its site.
No, I'm looking for something that'll allow me to do some typing on my phone without needing to be connected 24/7. Google Docs works perfectly for that purpose.
No, I'm looking for something that'll allow me to do some typing on my phone without needing to be connected 24/7. Google Docs works perfectly for that purpose.
If you're willing to pay a fee, iA Writer could fit your needs. Otherwise, this maybe? https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/drafts-5-capture-act/id1236254471 (I use Apple's own Notes app.)
If you're willing to pay a fee, iA Writer could fit your needs. Otherwise, this maybe?
Unfortunately don't have any credit at the moment, so I can't try out iwriter, but drafts seems nice. Freemium model isn't too agressive (I can do without night theme), doesn't get laggy like Zoho...
Unfortunately don't have any credit at the moment, so I can't try out iwriter, but drafts seems nice. Freemium model isn't too agressive (I can do without night theme), doesn't get laggy like Zoho does, privacy policy isn't too bad, so it looks like I'll be using this app for a but. Thanks!
One way to use YouTube without Google using you too much is by accessing its content through https://invidio.us/ Turn https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKeBk96ZMCk into...
One way to use YouTube without Google using you too much is by accessing its content through https://invidio.us/
AMP is so weird. How can it be a good idea to open a website and have "google.com" displayed as its url instead of the name of the website? Isn't that what we were teaching people left and right...
AMP is so weird. How can it be a good idea to open a website and have "google.com" displayed as its url instead of the name of the website? Isn't that what we were teaching people left and right to look out for in fishing sites?
Google's dominance in the web always seemed to be based on how wide-spread and generally functional their services were, it was annoying but halfway fair. But they're closing that shit up, fast.
The whole idea is backwards. You can make pages load fast just by reducing the amount of JavaScript you use. You don't need Google's help with this. AMP is a solution to a problem that is both...
The whole idea is backwards. You can make pages load fast just by reducing the amount of JavaScript you use. You don't need Google's help with this. AMP is a solution to a problem that is both created and trivially fixed by the people who have the problem. It's bizarre.
That makes me wonder if AMP is the driving motivation behind Google’s initiative to get rid of URLs. I think Google has done a lot of good work for the web over the years, but then there’s this.
That makes me wonder if AMP is the driving motivation behind Google’s initiative to get rid of URLs.
I think Google has done a lot of good work for the web over the years, but then there’s this.
Google keeps doing things that are good for Google. Sometimes that is good for everyone, but not always. Android was supposed to be an awesome open source operating system everyone can use, but...
Google keeps doing things that are good for Google. Sometimes that is good for everyone, but not always. Android was supposed to be an awesome open source operating system everyone can use, but now all the AOSP apps are not being updated that frequently anymore and Google's proprietary apps and services are digging into every nook and cranny of Android as it appears on real phones. Android, Chrome, and ChromeOS are all proprietary software that pretends to be open source. And because they are so big and popular, they can throw their weight around to force their ideas on standards bodies and businesses. Nobody would adopt AMP if Google weren't behind it.
And as their payoff for creating Android and Chrome, they've been able to get their foot in the door to make it nearly impossible for 90% of the mobile market to block ads while watching Youtube...
And as their payoff for creating Android and Chrome, they've been able to get their foot in the door to make it nearly impossible for 90% of the mobile market to block ads while watching Youtube or checking their Gmail.
Google is working on fixing that: https://www.ampproject.org/latest/blog/a-first-look-at-using-web-packaging-to-improve-amp-urls/ I still don't think it's a good idea to push this kind of thing,...
How can it be a good idea to open a website and have "google.com" displayed as its url instead of the name of the website?
I still don't think it's a good idea to push this kind of thing, other browsers will be forced to support it and it'll eventually evolve into a standard that was created as a hack to fix another hack (AMP) that was meant to improve page loading because modern websites are too bloated.
I absolutely loathe AMP sites, due to it breaking so many things for me. eg.: Clicking on a reddit link, doesnt open relay to display it, but a version of reddit that is even shittier than...
I absolutely loathe AMP sites, due to it breaking so many things for me. eg.: Clicking on a reddit link, doesnt open relay to display it, but a version of reddit that is even shittier than redesign + mobile combined for me.
Also if there's "more of this website" reddit link block following the first link in search results, those will open in an app just fine, it's the first one which is AMP. Inconsistent.
Also if there's "more of this website" reddit link block following the first link in search results, those will open in an app just fine, it's the first one which is AMP. Inconsistent.
The server is dead but you can load it (ironically) in Google Cache. Re: AMP, I don't plan to support it but I'm also not that bothered by it. I think people probably take more issue with the AMP...
Re: AMP, I don't plan to support it but I'm also not that bothered by it. I think people probably take more issue with the AMP Cache than they do the protocol itself. As well as Google's unfair promotion of AMP pages through their mobile carousal, if that still exists.
To address the author's argument that the end-goal is a "tidy web" though, I don't see it that way. AMP's HTML isn't any cleaner than regular HTML5 -- they're just nested tags like any other SGML language. Structured data (microdata, RDFa, or JSON-LD) isn't a requirement on AMP pages either, and works just the same in regular HTML.
It's very interesting how polarizing of an issue AMP is. Users seem to love it, but Hacker News goers (and now I suppose Tilde users) seem to loath it. I remain mostly indifferent.
I must admit I am glad to see novel implementations of WebComponents though. That's a technology with a lot of potential.
Speaking from a user's standpoint, AMP isn't bad for viewing content on mobile. But it looks like dogshit when you open an AMP page from a desktop browser. Which also makes sharing links from...
Speaking from a user's standpoint, AMP isn't bad for viewing content on mobile. But it looks like dogshit when you open an AMP page from a desktop browser. Which also makes sharing links from mobile, which is already a tedious task, even harder.
No idea what it's like from the developer's side though.
From what I've seen, they've solved 2/3 problems so far on that one. Last year they added a simply "copy" button to each AMP page which copies the original source. They also use canonical tags so...
From what I've seen, they've solved 2/3 problems so far on that one.
Last year they added a simply "copy" button to each AMP page which copies the original source.
They also use canonical tags so that share intents will read from the original source instead of the current URL. This makes sharing to contacts/facebook/whatever use the original source.
The last problem is copying directly from the URL bar, which I do believe is being worked on as well. Though I don't know anything about the Web Packaging API they're using or how that works.
They added that "copy" button to the AMP pages Google hosts. It seems more and more websites are doing their own AMP pages now though and I've never seen that included. The intents sound like a...
They added that "copy" button to the AMP pages Google hosts. It seems more and more websites are doing their own AMP pages now though and I've never seen that included.
The intents sound like a good idea, maybe I should try using the share button more instead of just copying the URL, but it seems like passing intents has their own universe of problems.
His account was suspended by his host due to too much traffic. Time for him to find a better hosting provider. https://twitter.com/badams/status/1037722939926474754
His account was suspended by his host due to too much traffic. Time for him to find a better hosting provider.
I feel like this should be a violation of competition law given Google's big market share in search engines.
Worth bearing in mind that Google would also like the URL bar to disappear entirely as well, replacing it with a certificate of trust.
They spoke about this recently at the AMP conference this year. Video. Where the URL would remain, but have no real-world connection to the group of servers supplying you with content. You'll see a non-google domain, with a non-google SSL certificate... But it may well be being delivered by Google.
Wired had an article about that yesterday as well: https://www.wired.com/story/google-wants-to-kill-the-url/
Y'know... I've been putting up with a lot of Google's bullshit over the years because I'm a lazy fuck and a creature of habit, but the top-level article and this conversation have officially pushed me over the edge. Thanks for that.
If you need any help with degoogling, hit me up or create a post here on Tildes.
Not google-specific, but probably the hardest thing for me to move away from (and the main reason I haven't cut google) would be my gmail account, which I use as my primary address. It's not so much a problem of finding a provider, but I've moved emails before and it was an absolute nightmare and took ages because there's so much stuff tied to it.
Any general advice there?
My advice is to not do it all at once. Start with the things you use or value most. Keep your Gmail account around for password recovery of some account you will remember in the future.
You can set an auto-reply message for incoming e-mail in which you inform the sender that you have a new address. And you can add a signature to each of your outgoing e-mails informing the recipients that you will be moving.
Some new providers allow pulling e-mail in from other addresses. This way you can access your Gmail mail from your new account. I would advise against this, as it can get messy and will not motivate you to complete the transition.
If you don't yet use a password manager and unique passwords for your accounts, this is a good time to start doing that as well; If you're already going through accounts settings to change your e-mail address, you might as well change your passwords at the same time.
There's no way it's going to be quick and easy, unfortunately. Google knows this and is counting on it to keep people trapped in their very comfortable but abusive environment.
Edited to add: Please sign out of Gmail when you're done with it. Or better yet: use a dedicated browser for Google products. As long as you're logged into a Google account session, they tie whatever they can track to your account/identity.
Could you recommend some free email provider? I've heard about ProtonMail, but it's free version looks very limited, especially with only 3 folders and 500MB of storage, which I'm not sure for how long would it be enough. I cannot spend any money on this, as I don't have any bank account yet.
I've never used password manager, as I have hard time trusting apps enough to give it all my passwords, but I've thought about doing so. I use one of three passwords for the small random websites you use once or twice, one complex password for all my computers, one complex password for my mail and another complex password for my (now disabled) facebook account. I'm not sure if I'm actually willing to use app, especially when I'm not sure if I don't have some malware on my computer which could get these passwords somehow. Do you think people would benefit from password manager even if they use complex unique passwords for each important account?
I would still recommend paying for your e-mail service, but I understand that this is not an option for you right now. See if the others in this list work for you: https://www.privacytools.io/#email
Whatever you do, do not re-use passwords. Today the most likely threat is that one service you use is hacked, that your password is decrypted and then used to try to log in to accounts on different services.
If your threat model does not include people in your own home, if you consider your home a safe place, it's not a bad idea to write your passwords down. I know this goes against what we've been taught for years, but it really isn't a bad strategy. Just don't write them on a post-it stuck to your screen.
To create unique, hard to crack passwords without using a generator try the diceware technique: http://world.std.com/%7Ereinhold/diceware.html
If you speak more than one language, you can shake things up by using words from several different languages.
It's good to be skeptical. Cloud-based password managers are convenient, but not always the best idea. Offline ones aren't always convenient, as you'll have to find a way to make your encrypted password database file accessible on all your devices and keep it synchronized.
I use KeepassXC myself and store the database on a private server, but it is encrypted well so you could even store it on Google Drive or Dropbox. You could also store a copy on a USB drive.
If there is malware on your computer that captures passwords, it doesn't really matter where you store them. They will be captured when you use them.
The benefit of a password manager is that you can generate and store truly unique passwords for each account. You can easily change your passwords when you need to, and you can use very long passwords without having to remember them. The only password you need to remember is the one that opens your password database. Or you could get a YubiKey or other FIDO key to secure your database with. (Do not get the Chinese-manufactured ones recommended by Google.)
For more on password managers, see: https://www.privacytools.io/#pw
I hope I've answered all your questions :)
That's where I was a few years ago, and here's the thing: use a free/libre, preferably audited, password manager. If it's audited and free, then you really aren't putting trust into anyone. If it's not audited, but it's free, you can at least trust that your passwords are safe from the average attacker. Check out Keepass and Bitwarden.
https://www.passwordstore.org/
Zero trust required. It does require some learning. I use pass to keep things sync'd between my laptop / phone / desktop using git (keybase). All the data is encrypted clientside using gpg. If this is more than you want to bite off, I understand. If you lose those keys then your passwords are toast. Ultimately though, that's what taking ownership of data requires, unfortunately.
No, not according to this:
Sources:
I'm not @Emerald_Knight, but are there any good alternative apps to Google Docs on iOS?
That depends on how you use it. Are you looking specifically for something that allows online collaboration?
No, I'm looking for something that'll allow me to do some typing on my phone without needing to be connected 24/7. Google Docs works perfectly for that purpose.
Apple Pages generally works better on mobile than Google Docs, at least in my opinion.
If you're willing to pay a fee, iA Writer could fit your needs. Otherwise, this maybe?
https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/drafts-5-capture-act/id1236254471
(I use Apple's own Notes app.)
Unfortunately don't have any credit at the moment, so I can't try out iwriter, but drafts seems nice. Freemium model isn't too agressive (I can do without night theme), doesn't get laggy like Zoho does, privacy policy isn't too bad, so it looks like I'll be using this app for a but. Thanks!
Great! And +1 for reading the privacy policy :)
Oh wait, we don't do +1 here... Uhm... Kudos!
Probably MS Office but of course it's not free.
My main trouble with breaking up with google is YouTube :(
One way to use YouTube without Google using you too much is by accessing its content through https://invidio.us/
Turn https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKeBk96ZMCk into https://invido.us/watch?v=iKeBk96ZMCk or even https://invidio.us/iKeBk96ZMCk
There are browser extensions which automatically redirect YouTube links to invido.us.
For alternatives, look into PeerTube.
and on an android phone you should use new pipe it is the youtube app of a better world, where the stuff you use does the stuff you need it to do :-)
AMP is so weird. How can it be a good idea to open a website and have "google.com" displayed as its url instead of the name of the website? Isn't that what we were teaching people left and right to look out for in fishing sites?
Google's dominance in the web always seemed to be based on how wide-spread and generally functional their services were, it was annoying but halfway fair. But they're closing that shit up, fast.
The whole idea is backwards. You can make pages load fast just by reducing the amount of JavaScript you use. You don't need Google's help with this. AMP is a solution to a problem that is both created and trivially fixed by the people who have the problem. It's bizarre.
That makes me wonder if AMP is the driving motivation behind Google’s initiative to get rid of URLs.
I think Google has done a lot of good work for the web over the years, but then there’s this.
Google keeps doing things that are good for Google. Sometimes that is good for everyone, but not always. Android was supposed to be an awesome open source operating system everyone can use, but now all the AOSP apps are not being updated that frequently anymore and Google's proprietary apps and services are digging into every nook and cranny of Android as it appears on real phones. Android, Chrome, and ChromeOS are all proprietary software that pretends to be open source. And because they are so big and popular, they can throw their weight around to force their ideas on standards bodies and businesses. Nobody would adopt AMP if Google weren't behind it.
And as their payoff for creating Android and Chrome, they've been able to get their foot in the door to make it nearly impossible for 90% of the mobile market to block ads while watching Youtube or checking their Gmail.
Google is working on fixing that: https://www.ampproject.org/latest/blog/a-first-look-at-using-web-packaging-to-improve-amp-urls/
I still don't think it's a good idea to push this kind of thing, other browsers will be forced to support it and it'll eventually evolve into a standard that was created as a hack to fix another hack (AMP) that was meant to improve page loading because modern websites are too bloated.
I absolutely loathe AMP sites, due to it breaking so many things for me. eg.: Clicking on a reddit link, doesnt open relay to display it, but a version of reddit that is even shittier than redesign + mobile combined for me.
I switched to DuckDuckGo as the default search on my phone and tablet because of AMP.
Also if there's "more of this website" reddit link block following the first link in search results, those will open in an app just fine, it's the first one which is AMP. Inconsistent.
The server is dead but you can load it (ironically) in Google Cache.
Re: AMP, I don't plan to support it but I'm also not that bothered by it. I think people probably take more issue with the AMP Cache than they do the protocol itself. As well as Google's unfair promotion of AMP pages through their mobile carousal, if that still exists.
To address the author's argument that the end-goal is a "tidy web" though, I don't see it that way. AMP's HTML isn't any cleaner than regular HTML5 -- they're just nested tags like any other SGML language. Structured data (microdata, RDFa, or JSON-LD) isn't a requirement on AMP pages either, and works just the same in regular HTML.
It's very interesting how polarizing of an issue AMP is. Users seem to love it, but Hacker News goers (and now I suppose Tilde users) seem to loath it. I remain mostly indifferent.
I must admit I am glad to see novel implementations of WebComponents though. That's a technology with a lot of potential.
Speaking from a user's standpoint, AMP isn't bad for viewing content on mobile. But it looks like dogshit when you open an AMP page from a desktop browser. Which also makes sharing links from mobile, which is already a tedious task, even harder.
No idea what it's like from the developer's side though.
From what I've seen, they've solved 2/3 problems so far on that one.
Last year they added a simply "copy" button to each AMP page which copies the original source.
They also use canonical tags so that share intents will read from the original source instead of the current URL. This makes sharing to contacts/facebook/whatever use the original source.
The last problem is copying directly from the URL bar, which I do believe is being worked on as well. Though I don't know anything about the Web Packaging API they're using or how that works.
They added that "copy" button to the AMP pages Google hosts. It seems more and more websites are doing their own AMP pages now though and I've never seen that included.
The intents sound like a good idea, maybe I should try using the share button more instead of just copying the URL, but it seems like passing intents has their own universe of problems.
That link gives me 404, anyone else getting 404?
Yup, same.
Here's an archived version: https://web.archive.org/web/20180905184411/https://www.polemicdigital.com/google-amp-go-to-hell/
His account was suspended by his host due to too much traffic. Time for him to find a better hosting provider.
https://twitter.com/badams/status/1037722939926474754
Wordpress.com for ease of use. Github Pages if you like to tinker. Both allow you to assign your own CNAMEs.
I've heard wordpress uses amp by default, but I think you can turn it off.
IIRC wordpress has a AMP plugin, but it is not even installed by default, maybe on "hosted by wordpress.com" version it is
So wait, is Microsoft the good guy again? What am I even supposed to do anymore.
Delete all your internet browsers and go back to BBSes and Email?
That would be a good future to hope for.