back to article Kill Google AMP before it KILLS the web

There's been a good deal of ongoing discussion about Google AMP – Accelerated Mobile Pages. Quite a few high-profile web developers have this year weighted in with criticism and some, following a Google conference dedicated to AMP, have cautioned users about diving in with both feet. These, in my view, don’t go far enough in …

Silver badge
Facepalm

Oh, meant to say - the Reg site is really slow on mobile

Know any tech to speed it up?

21
2

Re: Oh, meant to say - the Reg site is really slow on mobile

Try using Lynx: http://lynx.browser.org

Does the Reg *really* need such large pictures on every article?

28
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Oh, meant to say - the Reg site is really slow on mobile

Try http://m.theregister.co.uk – all the flavor, none of the fat.

28
0
Silver badge

Re: Oh, meant to say - the Reg site is really slow on mobile

It may be due this this little lot:

- https://www.theregister.co.uk/design_picker/4a7827b65d097113835f77713c9af57867dc85ae/javascript/_.js

- https://www.googletagservices.com/tag/js/gpt.js

- https://nir.regmedia.co.uk/?g=c&g=sa&s=c/soft.front

- https://securepubads.g.doubleclick.net/gpt/pubads_impl_118.js

- https://securepubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/ads?gdfp_req=1&correlator=2604313996165120&output=json_html&callback=googletag.impl.pubads.setAdContentsBySlotForSync&impl=ss&json_a=1&eid=108809080%2C108809103&sc=1&sfv=1-0-8&iu_parts=6978%2Creg_software%2Cfront&enc_prev_ius=%2F0%2F1%2F2%2C%2F0%2F1%2F2%2C%2F0%2F1%2F2%2C%2F0%2F1%2F2%2C%2F0%2F1%2F2%2C%2F0%2F1%2F2&prev_iu_szs=1x1%2C970x250%7C970x90%7C728x90%2C300x600%7C300x250%7C300x1050%2C300x250%7C300x100%2C300x250%7C300x1%2C728x90%7C970x90&ists=32&prev_scp=pos%3Dtop%26unitname%3Dwww_oop%26unitnum%3D1%7Cpos%3Dtop%26unitname%3Dwww_top_leader%26unitnum%3D2%7Cpos%3Dtop%26unitname%3Dwww_top_mpu%26unitnum%3D3%7Cpos%3Dmid%26unitname%3Dwww_mid_mpu%26unitnum%3D4%7Cpos%3Dbtm%26unitname%3Dwww_btm_mpu%26unitnum%3D5%7Cpos%3Dbtm%26unitname%3Dwww_btm_leader%26unitnum%3D6&cust_params=test%3D0%26li%3Dnull%26uid%3Dnull%26sc%3D1%26bwidth%3D10%26pid%3D188190%26pt%3Da%26axc%3Dnull%26kw%3Dgoogle%252Cjavascript%26cat%3Dcomment%26tag%3Dnull%26author%3DScott%252520Gilbertson%26year%3D2017%26nsfw%3Dnull%26vid%3Dnull%26ar%3Dfalse%26ct%3Ds-sync%26vc%3Dsoft.front&cookie_enabled=1&abxe=1&lmt=1495184423&dt=1495184423485&cc=3&frm=20&biw=989&bih=672&oid=3&adxs=0%2C-9%2C-9%2C-9%2C-9%2C-9&adys=35%2C-9%2C-9%2C-9%2C-9%2C-9&adks=2661161309%2C1687740957%2C92516220%2C1854142296%2C2530054159%2C3376615318&gut=v2&ifi=1&u_tz=-240&u_his=2&u_java=true&u_h=768&u_w=1024&u_ah=768&u_aw=1024&u_cd=24&u_nplug=6&u_nmime=8&u_sd=1&flash=18.0.0&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theregister.co.uk%2F2017%2F05%2F19%2Fopen_source_insider_google_amp_bad_bad_bad&dssz=7&icsg=232&std=0&csl=46&vrg=118&vrp=118&ga_vid=437314812.1495184424&ga_sid=1495184424&ga_hid=1621936060

- https://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/osd.js

- https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

- https://tpc.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/r20170517/r20110914/activeview/osd_listener.js

- https://tpc.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/r20170517/r20110914/client/ext/m_window_focus_non_hydra.js

- https://tpc.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-8/js/ext.js

- https://connect.facebook.net/en_GB/all.js

- https://tpc.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-8/js/ext.js

- https://tpc.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/r20170517/r20110914/activeview/osd_listener.js

- https://www.google-analytics.com/analytics.js

- https://s.dpmsrv.com/dpm_812ed4562d3211363a7b813aa9cd2cf042b63bb2.min.js

- https://tpc.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/r20170517/r20110914/abg.js

- https://tpc.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/r20170517/r20110914/client/ext/m_js_controller.js

- https://tpc.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/r20170517/r20110914/client/ext/m_window_focus_non_hydra.js

- https://tpc.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/r20170517/r20110914/activeview/osd_listener.js

- https://a.dpmsrv.com/dpmpxl/index.php?id=480082361948883117&q=xImp&v=1.x&cl=97&pixelIndex=0&r=222544&tzOffset=240&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theregister.co.uk%2F2017%2F05%2F19%2Fopen_source_insider_google_amp_bad_bad_bad&_=1495184425193

- https://a.dpmsrv.com/dpmpxl/index.php?q=xSeg&v=1.x&ep%5Bids%5D=1501713&cl=97&pixelIndex=0&r=466573&tzOffset=240&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theregister.co.uk%2F2017%2F05%2F19%2Fopen_source_insider_google_amp_bad_bad_bad&id=480082361948883117&_=1495184425195

https://servedby.flashtalking.com/imp/8/75420;2411227;201;js;Register;TINTRIDemendGenAwareness18Q1ODisplayDTheRegisterAudienceBNNAEN300x250xMPUvideo/?ftx=&fty=&ftadz=&ftscw=&ft_custom=&ftOBA=1&ft_agentEnv=0&ft_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theregister.co.uk%2F2017%2F05%2F19%2Fopen_source_insider_google_amp_bad_bad_bad&cachebuster=223384.67789813876

- https://cdn.flashtalking.com/xre/241/2411227/1777171/js/j-2411227-1777171.js

- https://servedby.flashtalking.com/imp/8/75420;2411229;201;js;Register;TINTRIDemendGenAwareness18Q1ODisplayDTheRegisterAudienceBNNAEN300x250xROSAV/?ftx=&fty=&ftadz=&ftscw=&ft_custom=&ftOBA=1&ft_ifb=1&ft_domain=www.theregister.co.uk&ft_agentEnv=0&ft_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theregister.co.uk%2F2017%2F05%2F19%2Fopen_source_insider_google_amp_bad_bad_bad&cachebuster=763179.7129288316

- https://cdn.flashtalking.com/xre/241/2411229/1777171/js/j-2411229-1777171.js

82
1
Bronze badge

Re: Oh, meant to say - the Reg site is really slow on mobile

These comments are supposed to be about slagging Google. But since you started it...

The thing that annoys me about El Reg comments pages, much as I love the content, is the Web 1.54382 design of voting. I click on a thumb of the appropriate direction, start reading the next comment, then (after several seconds) the page jumps up to tell me that my vote has been added. Really annoying. And, of course, I can't vote on the next article until the first vote has registered.

Ironically, the best example I can give on how to do it right is Google's youtube. It handles voting of comments better, by changing the colour of the thumb. And faster.

And if you really have to insert text about "Your vote has been..." then see how youtube handles adding videos to your watch list. An overlay message stating the video has been added appears at a fixed place relative to the window (rather than relative to the video), hangs around briefly, then vanishes. And the activation area for adding to the watch list changes from a clock to a tick.

So sorry, guys, your content is awesome and your web design is pretty good, but it could be improved. That's not just speculation on my part because I can point you to examples. Embrace Web 2.0 rather than sticking with Web 1.54382.

55
1
Silver badge

I like that there's a cost to voting

It discourages those twitchy fingers. I mean, do we really want this place to be anything like the youtube comments sections.

Now back to the (legitimate, in this case I suspect) Google bashing.

15
4
Devil

Re: Oh, meant to say - the Reg site is really slow on mobile

Like a non-W3C-approved subset of HTML that will allow it's creators to recognise it and thus further abuse their monopoly of search to extend further control over the web.

RIP, open web.

14
2
Bronze badge

Re: Oh, meant to say - the Reg site is really slow on mobile

@handleoclast: forget Web 2.0, embrace Web 1.0. The Reg, to its credit, works just fine with javascript disabled.

24
0
Silver badge
Childcatcher

Re: Oh, meant to say - the Reg site is really slow on mobile

There used to be a Register android app, but it died. I wonder if its demise is tied to this story...

Mine's got a copy of Conspiracy Theories for Dummies in the pocket.

3
0
Silver badge

Re: Oh, meant to say - the Reg site is really slow on mobile

@Robert Helpman

You have a pocket in your hat? Must be a big one.

1
0
Silver badge

Re: Oh, meant to say - the Reg site is really slow on mobile

@John 104: Must be a big one.

I get that a lot.

2
0
Boffin

Re: Oh, meant to say - the Reg site is really slow on mobile

By making a custom Adblock filter you can simply remove those painfull idiot images by blocking everything from regmedia.co.uk.

In the old days, before this nonsense, I didn't have to block anything from elReg, it was all relevant.

Why does everything have to be so shouty these days, turned up to 11?

As usual, look at The Top, where decisions are made...

@elReg

How about making comments editable for 30 minutes, rather than just ten?

Thoughtful comments cannot be rushed...

7
0
Mushroom

Re: Oh, meant to say - the Reg site is really slow on mobile

"The Reg, to its credit, works just fine with javascript disabled."

YET!

It used to be slim, lighthearted and objective, too...

3
0

Re: Oh, meant to say - the Reg site is really slow on mobile

I'm so glad I'm using RequestPolicy Continued!

0
0
xyz

Re: Oh, meant to say - the Reg site is really slow on mobile

doing my mobile bit.... binned Chrome installed Opera Mini, binned Google search, started using DuckDuckGo and lo...instead of bashing the bishop at 1GB+ a month, I'm cruising at about 117MB a month.... and pages actually load without having to make a coffee each time I click on something. Google is EVIL!

5
0
Silver badge
Boffin

Re: Oh, meant to say - the Reg site is really slow on mobile

The thing that annoys me about El Reg comments pages, much as I love the content, is the Web 1.54382 design of voting.

Oh that I could give you a trillion upvotes! (which thankfully I can't as that would take a trillion full page reloads, and I doubt the entire world has the bandwidth for that!)

When at home I have to think more about voting, as I don't have that much bandwidth.

While on voting.. Can we have a "remove my vote" as opposed to "change it to the opposite"? Because of the delayed page bouncing stuff I often have read another post or two and want to up or downvote one post and ignore another. But the page bounces and the wrong post gets the click.. Do I change my vote to a + when I really didn't want a vote, or do I leave someone with a - when I didn't feel it was deserved? Would be nice if clicking the opposite button would simply remove the first vote.

Would also love to see a colour change on things I've already voted on. Sometimes I might come back to a thread after a day, or switch from "thread" to "newest" view, and waste several megs of my limited bandwidth voting and causing a page reload only to not change the totals.

Maybe we can have the voting done as checkboxes with the next/prev/page #'s act as a submit? That would help the seriously bandwidth challenged such as myself :)

(But still much thanks to El Reg, your site has its quirks but overall is better than most I visit :) )

1
0

Re: Oh, meant to say - the Reg site is really slow on mobile

The thing that annoys me about El Reg comments pages, much as I love the content, is the Web 1.54382 design of voting…

Yup, that's coming Soon®

0
0
Bronze badge
Pint

Reg Adopts Web 2.0

Thanks for listening, guys. It's made voting a much better experience. Have a pint on me.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Law, Sausages and HTML specifications...

>Like a non-W3C-approved subset of HTML

That's a good description of what HTML is these days - W3C couldn't cut it (last recommendation is approaching 3) - so WHATWG picked up the blowtorch to provide what generally passes as HTML5 these days.

>RIP, open web.

....it is actually Openish - largely steered by Opera, Moz and Apple bods.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

".. it'll look like it's from a legit new organization endorsed by Google."

On a non tech forum (Mumsnet ... it's a long story) there was a post only yesterday where someone was REALLY pissed off that their daughter had been conned by a look-alike site that - guess what - had been promoted by Google.

They were understandably upset and putting forward the suggestion that Google had some responsibility. After all, they had listed the site.

Now, I have no idea about the legalities or otherwise - where under US or UK law. The salient point is that it's sites like Mumsnet which have driven the UKs draconian web censorship laws which are already eyeing Google as being more than a search engine.

Shit like this isn't going to help Googles "not us guv" stance.

26
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: ".. it'll look like it's from a legit new organization endorsed by Google."

But was this a story about a driving licence or visa application type copy cat site? If so it isn't the same discussion. In which case it is quite hard to differentiate a scam site from a legit one sometimes - for instance, the post office have a service to submit your passport application but charge a fee for it. Is that different from another site which charges to do the paperwork and send it off, or a lawyer who charges for drawing up a will etc?

If it is about the fact that it was fake news pretending to be a legitimate site due to them using Google AMP formatting, then fair enough.

0
1
Silver badge

Re: "But was this a story about a driving licence or visa application type copy cat site?

No ... and read the responses. These people vote - and will vote to keep their Precious First Born pure ...

My daughter wanted to get her best friend some Kylie Jenner makeup for her birthday. She googled and clicked on the first link which came up and ordered £30 worth of cosmetics (money she'd saved up from pocket money and holiday jobs). She got a confirmation number with an order number and thought all was well. Except that her order never arrived.

She showed me the website she used and it's identical to the official site apart from xl at the end of the address - it even has https at the start.

If she'd paid by credit card she would be protected but as she's too young for a credit card she used her debit card so will never see the money again.

Aibu in thinking that google should do more to protect young consumers from fraudulent sites? (my emphasis)

https://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/2932576-to-think-that-google-should-take-responsibility-for-scam-sites?

7
0

Re: ".. it'll look like it's from a legit new organization endorsed by Google."

Send a link to that post to The Guardian -- both the editorial side, and the web site administrator side.

Tackling the AMP users one site at a time. :-)

3
0
Silver badge

Re: "But was this a story about a driving licence or visa application type copy cat site?

Aibu in thinking that google should do more to protect young consumers from fraudulent sites?

I love the fact that she* uses the expression "Am I being unreasonable" so much that she has an acronym for it.

* Sorry if this seems sexist. I assume it's she because the site is called Mumsnet.

9
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: "But was this a story about a driving licence or visa application type copy cat site?

But she's not a true follower of the Mumsnet faith as she used "daughter" instead of DD

5
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: AIBU ...

Bit rich a tech site slating normal people for having acronyms, doncha think ?

And, scoffing aside, by volume of subscribers, Mumsnet dwarfs El Reg ... they really are the voice of Middle England

5
5
Bronze badge

Re: "But was this a story about a driving licence or visa application type copy cat site?

Aibu - if you have to ask the question, the answer is yes.

12
3

Re: "But was this a story about a driving licence or visa application type copy cat site?

You're still protected under the distant selling act and debit card chargeback. If they haven't honoured the contract by failing to deliver then contact your bank who issued the debit card and ask for a chargeback due to fraud.

8
0
Bronze badge

Re: "But was this a story about a driving licence or visa application type copy cat site?

"Aibu - if you have to ask the question, the answer is yes."

That is glib tosh. "Am I being unreasonable?" is a perfectly reasonable way of offering an opinion while displaying some humility, in recognition of the fact that what seems reasonable, even blandly uncontroversial to one person, might outrage another.

Two decent, smart people can hold views which are polar opposites, each initially regarding the other's opinion as "unreasonable". That's why honest debate, evaluation of evidence, looking at another's rationale are so important to civilisation. Those two decent, smart people can talk to each other (not the same as shouting past each other) and may end up still disagreeing—but doing so while at least understanding why their interlocutor reasonably holds differing views.

I think it's called being a grown-up. Admittedly, in the modern Age of Stupid, epitomised by the rise of such cretinous children as the current "leader" of the free world, this appears to be in short supply.

But let the rest of us please not fall into the traps of simplistic, glib dismissals of others' views.

11
4
Silver badge
Stop

Re: "But was this a story about a driving licence or visa application type copy cat site?

Sorry, bollocks. "Am I being..." is nothing but a cheap attempt to strong-arm approval out of your interlocutor by forcing the polite deflection in 99.999999999% of cases, mostly used when even the speaker feels their cause is shoddy enough to need that. After a certain age those nasty little things people consciously or unconsciously do with the sole intent of trying to manipulate you tend to stick out like a sore thumb.

10
3
Bronze badge
Coat

Re: "But was this a story about a driving licence or visa application type copy cat site?

Her daughter is a DD? Pictures, please?

6
1
Anonymous Coward

@Milton, re: glibness.

*Hands back your red Swingline* Please don't burn down the office yet, I still need to rescue my "Fuck this job!" coffee mug.

Sarcasm aside, thank you for the well articulated argument. It's a refreshing change of pace. Enjoy a pint on me... preferrably long enough so I can get that coffee mug. =-)p

2
0
Silver badge

Re: "But was this a story about a driving licence or visa application type copy cat site?

The "site with xl at the end of the address" - somebody registered that domain. Somebody either put that site on a hosting service, or obtained the IP address for his own server.

So the police should be able to track the party down. If it turns out the site is hosted in an uncooperative jurisdiction... like Russia, for example... then it can simply be disconnected from the Internet, with the OECD nations refusing to use any Internet backbone to which that country is allowed access.

So if the police can't collar the responsible party, and extract every penny of her money from him or her, there should still be consequences, as automatically as night follows day.

There probably won't be - but if we had done things like that, the Internet would be a very different place.

4
1

Re: AIBU ...

"And, scoffing aside, by volume of subscribers, Mumsnet dwarfs El Reg ... they really are the voice of Middle England"

To flies, guess what is more popular than cake!

2
1

Re: "But was this a story about a driving licence or visa application type copy cat site?

LOL. DD == "dear daughter"

0
0

Re: "But was this a story about a driving licence or visa application type copy cat site?

You lost me when you did exactly as you suggested we not do.

0
0
Silver badge
Mushroom

Turning it off

..annoyingly the only way to disable it seems to be to restrict yourself to the desktop version of google, so it thinks you've got a computer rather than a phone. Do Not Like AMP

9
0

Re: Turning it off

That AMP-I-am

That AMP-I-am!

I do not like

That AMP-I-am

Do you like free Reg and spam?

7
0
Silver badge

Re: Turning it off

I suppose you mean the desktop version of Chrome? However I'm sure pretty soon everything will be called The Google and we will be assimilated and our genetic likeness will be added to their collective.

Why not try the mobile version of Firefox?

7
0
Bronze badge

Re: Turning it off

Firefox Mobile is good. addons mean adblocking on mobile! saves data (all those auto-running video ads, urgh) without resorting to static pages in mini-browsers (which are also good, but break some sites)

I do however wish they would improve the zoom though, only supporting two finger pinching right now, which invariably requires two handed use to be effective. They add this, I'll probably make the full switch.

So Pros and Cons

2
0
Bronze badge

Re: Turning it off

I found a tick box somewhere in Google settings that said something like "Open links in browser". Seems to have done the trick for me.

2
0

Re: Turning it off

I've stopped using Google on my phones/tablets now. I use DDG and, when the results are not sufficient, the !g flag to search google. Since using DDG to do Google searches, I don't get AMP results. This data point does not a proof make, but perhaps others have similar results.

6
0

Re: Turning it off

Totally agree. Mobile Firefox is awesome and being able to turn ABP on means I can actually use my mobile for t'internetty stuff with wanting to throw it at a fucking wall.

Only problem I have is the way the page looks like it's loaded so you tap a link then the fucker jumps up a bit and the buffered tap gets applied to the wrong fucking link.

That does my swede in no end but I gather it happens with most mobile browsers.

Not at all a fan of this Google AMP thing. I don't really use Google stuff though (DDG on every device) so hopefully it won't affect me too much. Sucks if it fucks things up in general though.

4
0
Silver badge

AMP is ridiculous and nowhere near the convenience they must think it is. Trying to escape the page to get to the actual article itself to say perhaps get to the comments or their related content is a pain in the ass. I've ended up having to go back to find the link to the article on the actual mobile site of the news provider. They need to kill it with fire now.

20
0
Silver badge

I'm more annoyed by the AMP interface while I'm on a page. That huge header that sort of tries to implement similar appearance/disappearance behaviour as my browser bar but gets it all wrong so as just usually to be in the way, and the way that the slightest hint of a leftward or rightward movement in your scrolling causes you to push the content left or right, unlike every other scroll area in the OS where some intelligent leeway is applied.

Actually, "decided to reimplement something the phone does natively, got it wrong" is a recurring theme of Google. Witness the scrolling on the mobile version of Google News, or the back button behaviour in the beta Material version of Youtube.

I'd vote with my feet by disabling AMP if I could. It's something I want about as much as Google+. Maybe I should just take the hint and find a new search engine?

12
0
Anonymous Coward

AMP is good (For dumb mobile users)

Google made AMP to destroy the much more dangerous threat of Facebook and Apple's proprietary news apps.

The goal of AMP is to produce lightweight pages, which publishers SHOULD be able to create by themselves, simply using self-control to not stuff their own pages full of shit.

However they were physically unable to not shit in their own nests, so Google had to babysit them, and they quite rightly signed up.

AMP doesn't affect the desktop at all, and it will give mobile users more freedom. Because anything more than zero is an improvement.

7
8
Silver badge

Re: AMP is good (For dumb mobile users)

The goal of AMP is to produce lightweight pages, which publishers SHOULD be able to create by themselves, simply using self-control to not stuff their own pages full of shit.

THIS. This right here is the nut in the shell.

All other arguments are moot and spectacle.

Not making lightweight webpages the way god intended is the REAL fucking problem. Everywhere.

I do NOT understand the downvotes for this. Poser designers? Clueless marketing bog brains? Wankerific script kiddies who just THINK they know how to design and build websites? The special-places-in-hell advert channel server business? Fuck off the lot of you.

All of them shitting in the nest by the tanker ship.

Does this mean I support AMP? Fuck no. The last damn thing the Internet needs it yet ANOTHER fucking protocol.

7
0
Anonymous Coward

Write a reasoned argument about AMP then fine. But this is full of hyperbole and distortion of the facts. The comment that Google AMP strips all branding is rubbish.

Go to Google on your mobile. Type "news about ..." for instance. The AMP pages have the same visibility and branding in the normal results as any other page. In fact the dedicated News AMP section tags each story wit the actual graphic branding of the organisation - which is much more than a normal search has, unless you get an info box.

Click on one of those AMP pages and it loads quick with full branding of the site. You mentioned the guardian - well that brings up a page with the full Guardian branding and their unique style and colours. It looks just like a normal but more succinct Guardian page which works much better on Mobile.

The fact that you have to put an AMP javascript library in is designed to ensure that there a no blocking elements which are a pain especially on mobile. This could probably only be done with javascript but this does have to be universal so is going to not be as efficient as one written directly for a certain page or site.

The key issue I see with AMP pages is around advertising - this is where there are controls about what and how they can be served. However initial talk that you could only use Google ads is wrong and and ad platform could serve ads on AMP pages. However the high bandwidth, javascript heavy, ones aren't going to work - which is a good thing.

The key issue around AMP is that although it is open source, it was not run through a standards body to create the standard. The idea of AMP pages is a good one for consumers, I would suggest. Many people use a mobile on the go, want quick information while sitting at a bus stop or trying to find information about a product while in a shop - very different to sitting at a PC and deciding to surf the net.

I don't develop for to AMP because it isn't suitable for the type of site we have (it doesn't serve up purely content) and our mobile offering is pretty good already. But as a web user I would like to have seen sites put more thought into the mobile experience and it is a shame that Google, using a level of extortion tactics, was needed to get them to do it.

However the arguments against it get lost in a rant against Google not the technology, it almost seems like it was ghost written by another journalist on the Register.

10
10

No opt out for end users -> extortion

It breaks my search history, as I didn't go to the originating website.

It breaks my offline reading with Pocket, as I can no longer search for articles the same way.

That's the start of the issues, I've posted elsewhere in the comments in more detail.

11
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: No opt out for end users -> extortion

No opt out is not extortion. The extortion I mentioned was that AMP pages are given a weighting in search results to try to force content sites to use it.

This was similar to https sites getting a higher ranking than non-https.

I'm sure Google's argument would be that it is a push in the right direction or an incentive. However it could also be seen as extortion. Then again would many people have swapped their SHA1 certificates out if Google (and also the other browsers later) had not deprecated the security in them.

If they'd still been marked as secure, then users of those sites would be at a high level of risk that they hadn't realised. Same with admins who use self-sign certificates believing that they give them the same security as a certificate generated by their chose trusted root.

I know I'd put off upgrading my certificate stores and certificates from SHA1 until the warning messages started appearing to our users. It was something that needed doing but it was easier to put it off and less risk of immediately breaking something. In the end it took hardly any time and broke nothing.

1
2

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Forums

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017