How can I see this very specific example ? I would like to understand exactly what this looks like ...
I am not a reddit user and I don't consume much web content on a phone, which is using Safari on an iPhone ...
Would I need to download google chrome onto my iphone, then do a google search for a reddit thread, then click on that search result ? Or would I see this result in Safari as well ?
Genuinely curious as I would like to recreate this specific result ...
The madenning part is you will see these links when using Firefox or Safari and you'll see them on a desktop. It is of course, not just Reddit thing. I've seen LinkedIn shares look like this.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.reddit.com/r/gadgets/commen...
This page is simultaneously encased by AMP, has multiple ways reddit is trying to get me to install an app that isn't going to help me right now as I am hopping between websites--I am going to glance at reddit for ten seconds and then a stackoverflow question and then a bugzilla issue and then a quora thread... the last thing I want right now is to end up in some app--but it also doesn't show me all the comments and is asking me to click through to get them... it used to be I clicked a search result and it showed me the reddit thread, with all the comments and without an app: I liked that :(.
http://old.reddit.com still works, though
Hope they are sane enough to keep it forever
So none of the "nice" Reddit mobile site features actually work, and supposed "one-time" annoyances like the "Download the App" pop-up don't get cookied under AMP and continue to annoy on every google search. Insane!
[1] Via things like taking over swipe motions and the back button on carousel launched pages, for example.
They will also be able to release "unblockable" advertising to amp pages eventually.
The long term solution is stigmatizing ads—you can never ad block someone in the ear of a newspaper editor.
Because Google only discontinues useful services, and AMP is actively harmful (aka of negative usefulness)?
best and most succinct description that I've heard.
To me, this rationale looks an awful lot like a moat to stifle Google's competition. If collecting "the urls you're browsing" is wrong, why is it ok for Google to do it? And if it's not wrong, why is it somehow better that only Google gets to do it?
Depending on what you're doing, one-time collection may be enough.
Also, many captive portals are provided to businesses by companies whose own business interest is in tracking people, and they'll absolutely correlate the data.
Rather than having to worry about whether the service you're getting internet access from will track you, make it impossible for them to do so.
I think you've still failed to answer my basic point - how is this not just a competitive moat that benefits Google? If we care about privacy and data collection, legislation is required because Google and Facebook have no reservations about sucking up everything they can. If it's ok for them to do it, why not $RANDOM_CANADIAN_ISP?
If you use HTTPS, you know you're talking to the site you think you're talking to. If that site itself is sharing data in a way you don't want, including by pulling in third-party scripts, you have a problem with the site. That's not an argument against HTTPS; communicating in cleartext doesn't solve that problem, it just means that other people the site doesn't trust can also access that data.
Let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good here. Universal HTTPS is an improvement.
Pornhub should offer https if it doesn't already. A good example of a site where this would be a feature. Local recipe blog.. maybe
Btw.. Pornhub has it's own google version of ad tracking they sell/share espically when you login.
If you are not then sure browsing in an internet cafe or an unsafe network will allow rogue entities to see your interest in parts.
Your browser is fingerprinting you on chrome with an id. You are being fingerprinted with your unique fonts on other browsers. If you have javascript on that opens the floodgates. Logged into facebook still? Browser extension gone rogue? Andriod OS?
Granted, you then have to trust cloudflare; but it seems like they have been good actors so far considering their privileged position delivering tons of content across the web.
You do get the benefit of https even on static sites though. Do you want every network you join to be able to inject any JS they want into pages you're viewing? Https solves that.