Hacker News Reader

Comment by themodelplumber | Hacker News Reader

Yeah, but maybe there's a better way to get you your nice BART outcome, you know? I think that's really part of the pushback here. We haven't really given social permission for Google to convert the web to AMP by force.

View on HN

> ...convert the web to AMP by force. @themodelplumber

Complete hyperbole. Google's not forcing anyone to use AMP. They're not forcing developers or users to use AMP.

There is no force. There is only usability. Users prefer usability. Developers prefer people use their products. If a user does not, or cannot, connect to the developer's product the developer loses. If a user cannot connect easily and speedily to a page, they will not consider the product.

I rock an LG V20 and I use Chrome mobile. AMP lets me connect to the content I wish to consume speedily and easily. I connect at a significantly faster rate than without AMP. Thus...

I <3 AMP. I don't care who controls it. As long as I can connect to the content I want, I'm good.

> There is no force.

If you as a publisher want your content to show up in the carousel or top search results, you really have no choice but to use amp. It’s coercion if it’s not force.

"Then use a different internet" -Free Market Evangelists

I'm seeing less and less non-AMP content as time goes on and publishers jump on the hype train.

I am being forced to use AMP because I have no way to tell my search results to link to the real content

Bullshit, Google forced my top hits to be AMP instead of the the web. If I had a way to get the web, I would have continued to use Google. But as a user, Google decided that I should not have the choice to opt out of AMP.

If google wasn't trying to buttsecks you they would allow javascript blockers in Chrome. But they don't.

Just the tip bruh.

We haven't really given social permission for Google to convert the web to AMP by force.

Google is not the problem here.

As a user this choice is not yours; you get what the publisher wants to publish. If a publisher chooses to build an AMP version of their content they are telling Google that's what they want you to see when you click through to a story they've published.

We, the users, don't get a say in this beyond choosing not to view the content from publishers who use AMP.

Exactly. You can ask Google/Facebook to provide hotspots inside trains, ask the network provider to make cell reception better inside the subway etc. There are ways to achieve a better outcome instead of locking down how you consume the internet.

So in your world, he should devote all of his time, money, and effort into getting multi-billion dollar corporations and massive bureaucracies to install millions of dollars of soon-to-be-outdated equipment in a massive urban transportation upgrade, instead of just clicking on the link that works?

Millennial thinking.

Again, you are taking the suggestions too literally. What I simply suggest is a better alternative than AMP. Optimize pages better, improve their rendering engine, make better compression algorithms, complex CDN's or something which I can't even think of which makes pages snappier and better. I personally just don't agree with the AMP as a solution. I don't want to waste my time on explaining why as you can already see most of the downsides and my views are something like an union of most of them(you can start with the UX problems).

Also, just going with the solution that just works now is not always the best method going forward. It might be enough for you, but then again it isn't good enough for me.

Or instead of waiting few seconds, just get into the line of closed internet (let them monopolize it). It's the same like giving up the democracy for one-party system. Because if you stand out, you might heart yourself.

Nothing will you miss by missing few news. Try it, seriously!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com