Google invented AMP.
It had specifications for a webpage to conform to.
In return, Google would serve a cached copy and rank your page higher - ie a bigger audience. So publishers had to play along.
AMP developers produced something that is bad for the open web ecosystem because it destroys three sacrosanct elements of the web: the URL, the open web standard of HTML, and the decentralisation of the web.
Whilst AMP is now open source, it's still Google.
I don't know that any other search engines recognise AMP.
I don't think I've ever seen an "Always AMP" browser extension (tho I have seen many "de-amp" extensions).
Personally , I will support the publishers by linking/sharing/viewing the actual article link instead of the AMP link.
Apologies, I didn't know this, I just thought it was served on a subdomain for some random reason and it didn't matter. I'll ensure my links are "clean" in future 🙂
An interesting article - thanks for the link. I'm not exactly sure what options I have now though: I don't use Google search, I don't use their browser (or any of their software) - am I good to go?
edit: oh, someone else posted the exact same article, haha. I didn't look at the context, just replied directly from my inbox. Well, I'm leaving it here, so everyone can see me embarrassing myself :)
It’s almost as if when you have a massive block of countries with standardised rules it’s easier for businesses to do their activities even if the rules are imperfect
10 Comments
setInner234@lemmy.world · 20 pts · 3y
Hate to be that person, but AMP links are not good. It's yet another one of Google's schemes to control the web.
As for the article: feels like everyone with half a brain knew this was going to happen and unfortunately that's 48% of eligible voters at the time.
Rambler@lemm.ee · 2 pts · 3y
Would you please explain your reference to amp and google?
towerful@programming.dev · 3 pts · 3y
Google invented AMP.
It had specifications for a webpage to conform to.
In return, Google would serve a cached copy and rank your page higher - ie a bigger audience. So publishers had to play along.
This article has some overviews on it.
https://www.theregister.com/2017/05/19/open_source_insider_google_amp_bad_bad_bad/
Whilst AMP is now open source, it's still Google.
I don't know that any other search engines recognise AMP.
I don't think I've ever seen an "Always AMP" browser extension (tho I have seen many "de-amp" extensions).
Personally , I will support the publishers by linking/sharing/viewing the actual article link instead of the AMP link.
chris@fedia.io · 3 pts · 3y
Apologies, I didn't know this, I just thought it was served on a subdomain for some random reason and it didn't matter. I'll ensure my links are "clean" in future 🙂
Rambler@lemm.ee · 2 pts · 3y
An interesting article - thanks for the link. I'm not exactly sure what options I have now though: I don't use Google search, I don't use their browser (or any of their software) - am I good to go?
setInner234@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 3y
This is an old link, but contains all the information needed. They've watered it down a bit since, but you still see it pop up from time to time: https://www.theregister.com/2017/05/19/open_source_insider_google_amp_bad_bad_bad/
edit: oh, someone else posted the exact same article, haha. I didn't look at the context, just replied directly from my inbox. Well, I'm leaving it here, so everyone can see me embarrassing myself :)
Rambler@lemm.ee · 1 pts · 3y
No need for feeling that - covers both bases an' all. So all good, thanks for taking the time.
IntergalacticZombie@feddit.uk · 13 pts · 3y
No one could possibly have predicted this.
C4d@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 3y
Project Fear! Project Fear!!! Pro ject. Fear. And so here we are.
Kidplayer_666@lemm.ee · 9 pts · 3y
It’s almost as if when you have a massive block of countries with standardised rules it’s easier for businesses to do their activities even if the rules are imperfect