Hacker News Reader

Comment by rtsil | Hacker News Reader

The pattern is dangerous because it trains the user to dissociate URL and legitimate content, and the best tool at our disposal against phishing is still the ability to use the URL to ascertain the legitimacy of a content.

View on HN

URLs haven't been associated with legitimate content for a long time now, since most of the things come from giant CDN companies like CloudFlare anyway. What you're seeing in URL bar has very little to do with where the JS code executed on your computer is coming from.

Yes, but users at least know the js code loaded was done so on behalf of the webpage the url points too

Does it matter if it comes from a CDN rented by the NYT or a computer owned by DigitalOcean but rented by the NYT?

What matters is that the domain points to where the NYT considers is the correct source of their content.

With signed exchanges, the NYT is cryptographically opting into allowing Google (or other cache providers) to represent specific articles as being the NYT. It doesn't seem much different.

Do you really think most smartphone users look at the URL anymore? Or even know what a URL is?

From the non-technical people I've talked to, the answer is no, they don't know what a URL is, and that was happening before AMP came around.

You might want to back that up with research: people don’t look at full URLs but that’s exactly why it’s so important that the highly-prominent domain name display is accurate.

Are you sh!tting me?!!?

Had enough of HN ...

This place is bullsh!t.

Ban me.

It's the current amp status quo that trains users that legitimate content is sometimes on other domains.

This change would restore the idea that the URL indicates the provenance of the content,

Reply on news.ycombinator.com