Hacker News Reader

Comment by barrkel | Hacker News Reader

I thought AMP was an anti-ad-blocking play. It smells to me like Google is trying to use its dominant position in search to reduce consumer control of the browser; it's a risky road to go down for everyone, including Google.

For me, as long as I disable javascript, the modern mobile web is plenty fast enough. That is, the bits of the web I want to use on the move: mostly text, occasional pictures. It takes real effort to break this with javascript disabled. Most JS on e.g. news sites, blogs, aggregators etc. is tracking and ad related, dynamically adding links to viral content, all that stuff you don't need and dramatically slows down sites through repeated reflow.

View on HN

Yep, this was also incredibly obvious to me when google introduced it. It's such a typical Google move to market something as "better for the web" when what they really mean is "better for our pockets."

Fortunately for anyone with Apple phones, content blockers should still work on AMP pages.

Won't things like AdBlock still work on AMP pages? Do people outside the HN bubble turn off javascript to block ads (or for any other reason)?

No, but I can imagine a future where ad blockers start blocking all non-essential JS. It would likely be more conservative than someone who uses policeman or uMatrix but I have no doubt users would appreciate the speed increase -- especially on mobile.

i've seen this assumption made just about every time AMP is mentioned, that it's somehow about preventing adblock. AMP requires that all your ads are specifically tagged as ads, and that no javascript is modifying the page after it has loaded. Instead of making adblocking more difficult, it seems to be going out of its way to make adblocking easier to do and more difficult for publishers to prevent.

I don't understand, how is this different for Apple?

If anything I would assume the opposite - since practically everyone else can use Firefox (mobile) and all its plugins to avoid this issue.

Still crossing my fingers that the EU charges Google of antitrust over blocking apps like adblockers in its store.

> It's such a typical Google move to market something as "better for the web" when what they really mean is "better for our pockets."

It might be better for their bottom line (I haven't thought about it much, but it makes sense that it would be, so I'll just go with that), but that doesn't mean it isn't also better for the web and users. Same thing with Facebook Instant Articles. I now find myself, as a user, vastly preferring these sites on mobile, because they are far less likely to hang or hijack my browser.

It seems like amp is trying to give users the same experience you have but without disabling JavaScript. Is that so obviously nefarious?

> It seems like amp is trying to give users the same experience you have but without disabling JavaScript. Is that so obviously nefarious?

Given the massive security and privacy flaws of JavaScript, anything that encourages people to leave it enabled is objectively nefarious.

You're entitled to your position but please acknowledge there are a lot of tech-savvy people who do want a javascript-enabled web.

> You're entitled to your position

That JavaScript enables privacy and security exploits is neither a position nor an opinion but the truth.

> please acknowledge there are a lot of tech-savvy people who do want a javascript-enabled web.

Sure there are; I have no problem acknowledging it. They, apparently, have a problem acknowledging that they do not value privacy and security as much as they value novelty.

I could just as easily say you don't value your privacy and security as much as novelty since you are going to arbitrary websites.

People find zero days in image renderers, how do you justify not disabling image rendering? Your user agent and your browsers supported TLS configs are leaking who you are, how do you justify sending that info to every random web server?

Even just being on hackernews right now proves you are accepting a negative security impact for some novelty value.

> People find zero days in image renderers, how do you justify not disabling image rendering?

Rather more rarely than they do in JavaScript. But that's why lynx, links, elinks, w3m, emacs-w3m, eww & friends are so important!

But yes, if one wishes to render an image, then one must render an imagine. But why would one wish to execute JavaScript, when one only wishes to read text? I've no objection to executing JavaScript when it's required for an app (although I do object to apps which could be more cleanly delivered as pages).

> Your user agent and your browsers supported TLS configs are leaking who you are, how do you justify sending that info to every random web server?

Because it's a requirement to use TLS.

JavaScript is not a requirement to read articles or listicles (which are the vast majority of the pages targeted by AMP); people who demand JavaScript in order to display text and images are breaking the Web, and endangering their users' security and privacy.

I really am curious what the folks who are so eagerly downvoting me are thinking. Are they thinking (i.e., do they have persuasive counterarguments), or are they just feeling (i.e., are they reacting emotionally, without a rational basis)? I genuinely wonder what possible objection they can have to 'that JavaScript enables privacy and security exploits is neither a position nor an opinion but the truth'; AFAICT it's as objectionable as pointing out that the sky is often blue or that fire is hot.

I think you're largely getting downvoted because of your tone.

> They, apparently, have a problem acknowledging that they do not value privacy and security as much as they value novelty.

Belittling the contribution of scripting to the web as mere 'novelty' is rather disingenuous. I could list other benefits but I suspect you're already aware of them and discount them because they don't apply to you.

> Belittling the contribution of scripting to the web as mere 'novelty' is rather disingenuous. I could list other benefits but I suspect you're already aware of them and discount them because they don't apply to you.

I don't believe that scripting does contribute to the web (i.e., the interlinked web of hypertext documents we all use every day), or at least not enough to be worth the cost. The web is about documents, and documents are eminently readable without scripting (ever since writing was invented and displaced oral tradition …).

The cost does apply to me. Every page which requires me to enable JavaScript (and thus forfeit the security of the computers I do my banking and work on, and forfeit more privacy than that necessary to request a document) costs me. Every page which displays nought but a white page costs me.

I have — as I've noted — no objection to web apps qua web apps. Some of them are quite cool, and some are even useful. It's definitely nice to be able to use Linux and run programs written by people who have never used it. I do wish that browsers implemented a better language than JavaScript (which is an embarrassment to our profession) to that end, but what really gets me is the needless proliferation of apps which are really just document readers. I already have a document reader: it's my web browser.

I remember what the web was like when it was just a bunch of folks writing about things they liked and linking to one another. That was a pretty awesome web. I hate that it has been drowned out by folks who think that in order to read their documents I should give them execute privileges on my workstation.

How about we fix the root problem instead? I know that's out of Google's control, but instead of adding and pushing more JS heavy sites, they should be pushing lighter sites. Lets work with the tools we already have, rather than adding new ones.

AMP sites are lighter sites.

Maybe I'm mis-understanding, but then why would I want to use AMP? What benefit does it bring?

Because Google will treat your content preferentially if you do. To quote an earlier post of mine from a different thread [1]:

AMP can impose constraints because it's a corporate effort to re-frame content in a way that provides centralized ad serving, tracking, and the like. It gives the content publishers the same tools (ads, tracking) they have to provide themselves with on the open web, while simultaneously benefiting those like Google who will put their own viewport and context around that content. It's not that much different from when an individual wants to publish on Medium or Tumblr, so the platform provides the author with a box to put text in, a dashboard, view tracking, and stuff the author wants, while they get to host interesting content with which to attract an audience for ads. It's a win-win, symbiotic relationship, while on the self-hosted web, every publisher is on their own.

This isn't about HTML vs AMP at all. It's about business models, which are given in AMP, but left as an exercise for the publisher on the open web.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12272973

So I'm giving up control of my site, so that Google can strong-arm themselves to extract more value from it?

I think I'll pass, thanks

It's more of a mutually-consented handholding with small amounts of arm-twisting. Your content needs to make money for you to stay afloat -- if it doesn't, you're not in the target market for AMP -- so Google gives you some tools to that they can surface your content, and you get their ad and analytics infrastructure and their preferential treatment; the premise is both Google and the publisher win more than they lose.

But this is clearly only a plus for Google, by abusing the relationship with the publisher. The logic is circular here. If Google wants people to make better sites, then why don't they just rank sites higher if they aren't full of bloat?

If I read the above posts correctly, it sounds like it's not just Google that benefits; supposedly Google provides ads and such, which provides the publisher with revenue -- the publisher would otherwise have to find ad networks and such themselves. If a publisher already has advertising revenue sorted out, and they're OK with the expense in terms of time spent managing that, then there's little incentive and so they pass.

How much of that is correct? I don't know. I'm just explaining what (I think) the posts above were trying to say.

(Edit: spelling)

AMP is a strategy to take control away from the publishers, to prevent them from cluttering up the site with obtrusive ads and other heavy clutter around the actual content. The carrot that Google is offering the publishers in order to get them to relinquish this control is better placement in search results.

The best way to think of AMP is it's a list of things you're not allowed to do anymore when you make a website. It's just HTML with rules.

But then why use a whole new system, instead of just punishing sites that use too much crap?

I guess it's easier to measure the amount of crap when you've defined a list of no-no's and yes-yes, and on the other side it's also easier for publishers to understand.

Couldn't Google just say "If you do X Y and Z, we'll lower your ranking?"

A lot of the crap isn't loaded by the publisher's site directly but by third-party tracking/analytic/ad code. Many publishers would love to have faster loading sites but can't give up those third-party functions easily. Creating an ecosystem like AMP allows Google to also arm-twist the third-parties to clean up their act, if they want to be supported in AMP.

I guess I just don't see how this addresses my question. Why this would help, over just ranking those sites lower?

It seems like a roundabout way to do things.

They do prioritize faster sites over slower sites, and they announced it at least a year ago or more, but I think we can all agree that despite Google's announcement, the mobile web is still pretty slow. (Like, average page can take 8s to load.)

Google noticed that the mobile web is still pretty slow, and they also noticed Facebook's Instant Articles initiative. Under Instant Articles, news sites provide a special RSS feed with limited HTML features to Facebook, who caches the results and shares ad revenue with the news site. As a result, viewing participating news sites in Facebook is faster than viewing them in a web browser, e.g. in Google search results.

Google saw this as a strategic threat, and said: "How can we do what Facebook's doing, making news sites provide fast lightweight HTML to Google and our users, but in a more Open way? At least somewhat more open?" AMP was the result.

When you use AMP on your site, a third party (Google--in principle anybody, but in fact just Google for the moment) can verify easily that a site will load quickly, by design. They don't have to launch a browser and run a speed index test; they know, for sure, that the page is going to be pretty fast.

A third party also knows that all AMP pages allow third parties to cache them. (Again, only Google is doing this today, but it could be anybody, e.g. Facebook could present AMP pages from a fast Facebook cache, too.)

Google takes no ad revenue from AMP pages, and supposedly doesn't rank AMP pages higher (except by virtue of the fact that AMP pages tend to be faster and faster pages rank better). AMP pages do also get the lightning-bolt badge in search results, which might encourage users to click on them. And AMP has a github and accepts actual PRs, so AMP is open in that sense, too, except that it's officially governed by Google, so it's not really very open in governance.

Folks here seem to be pretty skeptical of AMP; I think it's a mixed bag. One positive outcome of AMP would be if its HTML components eventually become official elements in a future HTML document, built into browsers. Then AMP would be nothing more than a set of guidelines and a validator; that sounds pretty good to me.

I guess I'm still not seeing any advantage to using AMP, except as the obvious power-grab. I don't see anything in your statement that couldn't be done by just punishing sites for being bloated and slow, and stating why. Adding another layer onto something to combat complexity is two steps back.

I hate heavy sites probably more than the next guy, but pushing your own standard is the wrong way to go about it, IMO.

> I don't see anything in your statement that couldn't be done by just punishing sites for being bloated and slow, and stating why.

They tried that; they're still doing it. But it didn't work, and at this point I think it's naive to think that the mobile web will get much faster purely because Google ranks fast sites higher.

I'd argue that they haven't really tried it.

Maybe their failure is not prioritizing it enough in the algorithm. If I look for weather, there are tons of shitty, heavy-js sites. Yet http://myfreeweather.com/ (which still has some JS, but not a ton) is nowhere listed.

The first few pages of sites that google offers me are all terrible choices.

From what I can see, AMP is really less about "here's some cool new tech", and more "here's a buzzword and some conventions" to encourage sites to write lighter-weight, better designed web pages (or versions of web pages).

It seems like a sugar-coating over the "use modern HTML and make less bloated pages" pill.

So it's Google's ad/search-equivalent of Apple's MFI "Made for iPod/iPhone"?

For some it helps keep your own content lightweight: when your ad sales team tries to get you to make some change you know is bad (or if you dont know, amp tells you) you have a very explicit "we can't do that because it violates amp guidelines" response.

I'm pretty sure that value mostly applies to the Forbes and Techcrunches that have really started suffered from page weight and multiple relayouts after load, not for the individual blogs of hackernews readers.

This is nonsense. I think there are issues around AMP and search placement, anointing one specific solution to the problem, but in the end they're just web pages. You might as well say React is an anti-ad-blocking play. It make no sense.

Any reason you couldn't still use an ad-blocking extension or proxy for AMP pages? If anything it should make it even easier, since there are standardized tags for all ads...

I haven't examined the technical details very deeply, but from what I understand it's the content producer that has to use specific tags. What Google does to produce a page served up to the end user is then up to them. By intermediating the experience, they have a lot of control over the output, and they can integrate it with the rationale of making everything faster (and integration is exactly what would make it faster, make no mistake - all the ads, third party DOM elements, trackers, etc. not being integrated, and being dynamically constructed instead, is what makes modern news sites especially slow).

In extremis, they could do what Opera Mobile used to do, and supply a pre-rendered image to the end user. I don't think they'll do that (it wouldn't be very trackable, for one), but it's possible.

This is exactly what I came to say. I just keep JS disabled on my mobile and most things I want to read work and it reduces load times by an order of magnitude. If I really want to read something that won't work with JS, then I'll turn it back on for that site but I rarely if ever have to do that.

> it's a risky road to go down for everyone, including Google

What's risky about it for Google? They can back down at any time they want (this includes injecting ads directly in AMP pages, precluding competitors from doing the same because they control Chrome).

They have shown again and again that they don't give a shit about lost investments for web developers.

Large companies attract a particular type of executive: they see what a company's current strength is, and try to leverage that strength into advantages in other areas by sheer force, rather than competing and producing better products or services. It's perceived by a lot of people as ramming a product or service down people's throats, it creates resentment, and at the margin - where the leveraged strength approaches monopoly - it's illegal.

I'm of the opinion that infestation of upper ranks of companies by these kinds of people is what ultimately leads to their demise (or rather, regression to the mean of mediocrity). These people use up goodwill and generate resentment. When they're given too much leeway, they can push hard enough to attract government anti-trust attention and tie the company up in knots for years. They suck the soul out of companies by promoting a nihilistic vision of capitalism. They encourage attributing cynical motivations about any future action of the company (think Microsoft); it can take decades to shake that off.

So, the risks are both reputational and potentially regulatory, and they're cumulative. Yes, Google has cost goodwill in the past; but they don't have zero goodwill yet, and nor do they have infinite goodwill.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com