Hacker News Reader

Comment by dcbadacd | Hacker News Reader

How is using an external service to debloat pages okay but AMP isn't? Feels ass-backwards to me.

Maybe because that's not the only thing it does? It is what Google likes to pretend that AMP is all about, but you're also handing over the control of your traffic directly to Google, and being awarded with the SEO boost.

That's significantly different than debloating your website and remaining in control of the traffic, but you don't receive the SEO boost as a consequence. Even if you make your website faster than it would be if you were using AMP (which is not that difficult to achieve), you're still being punished for not giving control to Google.

But giving the control of the traffic to some third party website is okay? Not really. Especially not really with signed exchanges.

It doesn’t matter if it’s okay. I just brought it up because some guy was making the silly claim that his only option was to bow to standards set by google.

I don’t think google should be in charge of that, especially if they use search results as a way to force adoption.

If you put your page on the web it is going to get cached. The http depends on this. You are not giving up control of your traffic. You never had it in the first place.

because using that service is entirely optional.

Countless posts have been made by site operators who needed to adopt AMP to remain competitive in google search results.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com