The visibility of non paid posts on Facebook is a fraction of what it used to be. When it was high, it made sense that companies built their businesses around it. Those companies, at best, are hobbling along, like Zynga or Buzzfeed, or at worst, dead, like most of them.
What matters a lot right now is something else: the direct timeline accurate and somewhat algorithm free, communication channels companies have with their customers (and you have with your friends.) That is email and messaging.
We should be paying a lot closer attention and giving greater caution to Gmail, Facebook Messenger and WhatsApp. Particularly Gmail.
Hacker News is great, but notice that few news sites look like Hacker News.
Instead we often use outline.com, which as far as the news publisher is concerned is worse than what Google is doing because they lose all control. (If adopted at scale.)
> What if reddit wants to pre-render some google search result page when people submit a link to one?
Google search results pages are personalized, so they cannot safely be prerendered.
Even if Google had some reason to prerender unpersonalized results, Reddit would first need to implement an AMP cache before it would make sense for Google to optimize for it.
AMP pages enclose the page you visit within the html of google. So from the browsers perspective it is styling a box, not a scrolling body of text. iOS has similar weird behavior in Safari, and it’s pretty annoying.
Thanks! I see what's happening now: news.google.com is loading AMP links in a width=100% height=100% iframe. This means your scrolling affects the iframe and not the page. Chrome, however, uses scrolling of the top level page to determine whether the address bar should hide/show. So this gives two weird things:
* If you click on an AMP link without scrolling down enough to hide the URL bar, the URL bar remains even as you scroll through the AMP article.
* If you click on an AMP link after scrolling down enough to hide the URL bar (the case you saw), the URL bar stays hidden even if you scroll back up (unless you scroll all the way to the top, at which point you're scrolling the outer page).
So there's about four things going on here which are somewhat conflated, but I definitely agree with the approach of analysing this by power dynamics.
1) Link snippets. In the old days, there was syndicated news: org A could pay org B for the right to print bits of B's coverage. From this point of view, Google search looks like a syndication that they've not opted into and isn't paying. Of course, when they tried fighting back (some organisations in Spain and Germany, I think), they got removed from search results and ended up worse off. This is the view driving the "link tax" proposals in the EU.
2) "Snippets" that are in fact the whole article: both AMP and the proposed "web packages". In this case, Google end up publishing the whole article from their domain. The paper gets .. what exactly?
3) The bad recommendation problem: "This equates a responsible, expensively produced, extensively researched, professional newsgatherer with some guy who thinks the earth is flat for no reason other than that it ‘kinda feels right’." See also Youtube's role in promoting flat earth, anti-vax, neo-nazi, etc viewpoints.
4) AMP etc. vs paywalls: "In AMP, the support for paywalls is based on a recommendation that the premium content be included in the source of the page regardless of the user’s authorisation state."
Anecdotally, a lot more Facebook employees I've interacted with understand they've been at least complicit with evil and want to do better. That's at least a good Step 1.
On the other side I feel like there are far too many Googlers that have drank the vile tautology Kool-Aid that because the unofficial motto is still supposed to be "Do No Evil" that what Google is doing cannot be evil, because it is Google doing it. They haven't even reached Step 1 yet.
I can agree with the author's point that when technology like Google's AMP incentivizes the wrong things by promoting what's quick over what's slow/accurate. I can agree with many of the author's criticisms of AMP.
But I don't quite understand the author's concern about Google's push for AMP being a "monopolistic land grab" at the same time as the author's disgust that Google doesn't censor disreputable websites.
AMP is a technical solution to require technically-not-terrible sites; a reputability service is also a technical solution, but for a non-technical problem of terrible sites. Why is "cake or death" terrible for the former but not the latter? Especially since it seems like it'd be really hard to have a neutral reliability check that everyone could trust.
I feel there's a tension between "decentralised and open", and "centralised and curated". (You could have a walled garden as part of a larger decentralised web without needing control over others, though).
I think the author refers to curation not censorship, Google is trying to get the content from the publication that do actual curation and all the other content and show you what an algorithm thinks will make them more money.
The nontechnical problem is the prevalence of bad website design. AMP is not needed in order to have performant websites. The case Google makes for AMP is "web designers suck".
If it weren't that big a deal, Google, Bing, Baidu, etc. wouldn't go through the hassle of setting up the infrastructure to make instant loading with AMP possible.
The competitors (proprietary non-web systems like Facebook Instant Articles and Apple News) are instant. If AMP weren't also instant, it wouldn't have a point.
> If it weren't that big a deal, Google, Bing, Baidu, etc. wouldn't go through the hassle of setting up the infrastructure to make instant loading with AMP possible.
Sure they would. Google wants it because it increases Google's control of the web. Google's competitors want it because they don't want Google's control of the web to be increased.
No company controls the web. Not Google, Not Facebook, Not Apple. I dont understand where you're getting the idea that Google controls the web. Nobody is stopping anyone from publishing anything they want. Dont like Google? Talk about that on HN.
The real walled gardens are the apps ecosystem where there is a clear gatekeeper.
If we want to keep it open, we can simply keep building great websites. Real websites. Without "amp" and "portals".
Example: HN itself. No amp, much joy!
Or take a hint from Google themselves. They don't offer an amp version of their search results. And will never allow anybody to embed their site.