互联网与文化polemicdigital.com
反击 Google AMP（2018）
Fight back against Google AMP (2018)
2018 — 2019，它一次次回到首页
黑点是上首页（≥ 50 分）的那次投稿，空心点是没冲上去的投稿，点越大分数越高。
导读
这篇文章批评 Google AMP 项目，认为它名义上提升移动网页速度，实际上让谷歌对开放网络获得过多控制，并损害发布者和用户体验。作者呼吁网站不要构建 AMP 页面，而是直接建设高质量、高性能的网站。
为什么经久不衰：AMP 争议持续多年，涉及平台垄断、开放 Web 标准和用户体验，今天读来仍有现实意义。
HN 评论精选
认为 AMP 是谷歌控制开放 Web 的手段，应直接构建高性能网站而非 AMP 页面。
我强烈同意。Web 开发者和应用设计师应该努力构建快速、高性能、谨慎使用带宽的网站，因为这对最终用户有好处。但 AMP 的整套做法值得怀疑，而且多年来它似乎更像是让谷歌对原本应该开放的 Web 获得更多不应有且不必要的控制。更广泛地说，我认为这是尽量避免使用谷歌产品的又一个理由。他们表现出自己是霸凌者和不良行为者，想要控制互联网并反对开放 Web。我建议根本不构建 AMP 页面，而是构建高质量、高性能、能优雅处理设备尺寸变化和缺少 JavaScript 的网站。
scblock查看英文原文
I strongly agree. Web developers and app designers should work to build fast, performant web sites that use bandwidth carefully because that's good for end users. But the entire AMP approach to doing this is questionable, and as we have seen over the years it appears to act more like a way to give Google more undeserved and unnecessary control over what should be an open web. More broadly, I consider this yet another reason to avoid using Google properties where possible. They have shown themselves to be bullies and bad actors who want to control the internet and oppose an open web. I recommend simply not building AMP pages at all, but instead working to build high quality, performant websites which gracefully handle device size changes and lack of javascript.
提供向欧盟委员会投诉谷歌 AMP 反竞争行为的正式渠道。
欧盟公民可以就涉嫌违反竞争规则的行为向欧盟委员会提交正式投诉。这里有如何提交投诉的更多信息：https://ec.europa.eu/competition/contacts/electronic_documents_en.html 。如果你认为谷歌在 AMP 上从事反竞争行为，你有权发出信号，这可能引发调查。你也可以简单发邮件到 comp-market-information@ec.europa.eu 表达关切。你可以通过电子邮件向 comp-market-information@ec.europa.eu 报告你的关切。请注明你的姓名和地址，指出相关公司和产品，并描述你观察到的做法。这将帮助委员会发现市场中的问题，并成为调查的起点。
dessant查看英文原文
EU citizens can submit formal complaints to the European Commission for suspected infringements of competition rules. Here is more information on how to file a complaint: https://ec.europa.eu/competition/contacts/electronic_documents_en.html If you believe Google engages in anti-competitive practices with AMP, you have the power to signal these issues, which may result in an investigation. You can also share your concerns with a simple email to comp-market-information@ec.europa.eu. > You can report your concerns by e-mail to comp-market-information@ec.europa.eu. Please indicate your name and address, identify the firms and products concerned and describe the practice you have observed. This will help the Commission to detect problems in the market and be the starting point for an investigation.
从最终用户角度描述 AMP 带来的困扰：混淆来源、破坏分享链接、无法关闭。
文章关注的是它对 Web 开发者和 Web 生态的影响，这两个问题都很重要。但 AMP 对最终用户来说也非常烦人。作为最终用户，AMP 挡我的路，让我的体验更复杂。我得额外费劲搞清楚发生了什么。这个页面来自某个网站，但“由 Google 提供”。我的反应基本上是：这到底是什么意思，为什么它在这里浪费我的时间、弄乱我的屏幕，谷歌什么时候能去掉它？然后有时我通过 Slack 之类分享链接，点分享按钮，出来的 URL 一团糟。我知道他们会看 URL 来了解内容（因为现实中人们确实会看 URL），所以我不得不退回去，在 UI 里翻找如何获取真实 URL。也许“在 Chrome 中打开”可以，也许我得翻页面找它给自己的链接。我总记不住什么方法管用，我也不想记。我知道 AMP 页面应该加载更快，可能确实快一点，但我宁愿用这点速度换简单。而且如果给我选项，我会关掉它；这并不难，但他们不给，这说明他们不想让人关掉。
adrianmonk查看英文原文
This article focuses on what it's like for web developers and for the web ecosystem, which are both important issues. But AMP is also really annoying for end users. As an end user, AMP gets in my way and complicates my experience. There's extra work to figure out what's going on. This page is from whatever site but "delivered by Google". As an end user, my reaction is basically: what the hell does that mean, why is it here wasting my time and cluttering up my screen, and when can Google cut it out? Then sometimes I go to share a link with a friend over Slack or whatever, I hit the share button, and the URL comes out all fucked up. I know they're going to look at the URL to figure out what it's about (because in the real world, people do look at URLs), so I feel compelled to fix it, so I have to back up out of there, then dig around in the UI to figure out how to get a real URL. Maybe "open in chrome" will do it, or maybe I need to flip through the page itself to find where it gives a link to itself. I can never remember what works, and I don't want to have to. I know AMP pages are supposed to load faster, and they probably do a little, but I would gladly trade that for simplicity. Also, I would turn it off if they would give me the option, which wouldn't be hard but they don't, which tells me they don't want people turning it off.
虽反对 AMP 的锁定，但认为原文论证偏颇，把反对简化为开发者不愿放弃臃肿页面。
我一点也不喜欢 AMP，也完全同意锁定担忧——但我觉得这篇文章不太有说服力。有些地方读起来像一个习惯了往页面里塞大量 JavaScript 和可疑 UI 模式的开发者或发布者，现在对有人想夺走这个特权感到愤怒。我不能同意。例如，文章引用谷歌的建议说，如果已经选择提供 AMP 页面，那个页面就不应该故意比原版可用性更差；还批评谷歌推动网站管理员创建“更容易让谷歌理解”的网站，如 XML sitemaps 和 schema.org，以及 disavow 文件和 rel=nofollow 帮助保持链接图干净。文章认为这最终是在打造一个谷歌形状的 Web。
xg15查看英文原文
I don't like AMP at all and fully agree with all the lock-in concerns - but I didn't find this post particularly convincing. This reads in places like a developer or publisher who has grown accustomated to stuffing his pages with gobs and gobs of javascript and questionable UI patterns and is now outraged at the prospect that someone wants to take that privilege away from him. I can't agree with that. Examples: > The underlying message is clear: Google wants full equivalency between AMP and canonical URL. Every element that is present on a website’s regular version should also be present on its AMP version: every navigation item, every social media sharing button, every comment box, every image gallery. So Google's suggestion is that, if you've already chosen to offer an AMP page, that page shouldn't have intentionally worse usability than the original? > For years Google has been nudging webmasters to create better websites – ‘better’ meaning ‘easier for Google to understand’. Technologies like XML sitemaps and schema.org structured data are strongly supported by Google because they make the search engine’s life easier. Other initiatives like disavow files and rel=nofollow help Google keep its link graph clean and free from egregious spam. All the articles published on Google’s developer website are intended to ensure the chaotic, messy web becomes more like a clean, easy-to-understand web. In other words, a Google-shaped web. This is a battle Google has been fighting for decades. Sitemaps and structured data were the non-proprietary attempts to structure the web. Those could have made the web more accessible for everyone, not just Google. They are something fundamentally different than AMP. Yet, he condemns them too? Why? He seems to argue that the chaos and messiness of the web infrastructure is itself a quality that should be defended. Why would that be the case?
历次讨论
同类还值得读
如今电脑上几乎所有操作在感知上都比 1983 年更慢（2017）
Almost everything on computers is perceptually slower than it was in 1983 (2017)
2017 年的推文串认为，尽管计算机硬件比 1983 年快得多，日常操作的感知速度却常常更慢：启动、界面响应和网络应用被层层抽象、动画、后台检查与网络依赖拖累。
互联网与文化上首页 5 次 · 2017–2020twitter.com网站肥胖危机
The Website Obesity Crisis
Maciej Cegłowski（idlewords）的经典演讲文稿《网站肥胖症危机》，批评现代网页越来越臃肿：动辄数 MB 的 JavaScript、追踪脚本和广告，把本可以轻…
互联网与文化上首页 5 次 · 2016–2021idlewords.com编辑精选亚马逊那本标价 23,698,655.93 美元的苍蝇书
Amazon’s $23,698,655.93 book about flies
博文讲的是亚马逊上一本关于果蝇的二手书被标到 23,698,655.93 美元。
互联网与文化上首页 5 次 · 2011–2022michaeleisen.org浏览器 User-Agent 字符串的历史
History of the browser user-agent string (2008)
2008 年的经典文章用戏谑的“创世纪”口吻，讲述浏览器 User-Agent 字符串如何从简单的标识演变成层层叠加的伪装：浏览器为了绕过按 UA 分发的网站检测，纷纷把自己伪装…
互联网与文化上首页 5 次 · 2012–2022webaim.org编辑精选最后的问题——艾萨克·阿西莫夫
The Last Question - Isaac Asimov
阿西莫夫最著名的短篇科幻小说《最后的问题》的在线全文。
互联网与文化上首页 5 次 · 2009–2019multivax.com编辑精选