-
"The real question is, do you see more traffic than you would have if you didn’t do the [AMP] implementation? The answer for two-thirds of publishers is, no." digiday.com/media/google-amp-beat-facebook-instant-articles-publishers-start-question-amps-benefits/Permalink On twitter.com
♻️ 2 Retweets
❤️ 7 Favorites
Mood -1 🙁
-
AMP does little more than reinforce the existing structural inequalities between publications and the benefits it gives publishers is entirely dependent on Google's continued support via providing a cache.Permalink On twitter.com
❤️ 4 Favorites
Mood +4 🙂
-
At the end of the day AMP is about making Google-administered AMP a standard, instead of the community administered standards. This is about giving Google more control Chronotope/976093665004269568?s=19Permalink On twitter.com
❤️ 3 Favorites
Mood 0
-
Remember that general acceptance of AMP is what is telling Google that it can get away with this bullshit: wired.com/story/google-wants-to-kill-the-url/On twitter.com
❤️ 1 Favorite
Mood -3 🙁
-
Further obscuring the identity of websites will only make fraud easier, identifying bad actors harder, & distinguishing between things like AMPed content and standard content harder. It is 100% a play that would benefit Google financially, disproportionate to the rest of the web.Permalink On twitter.com
Mood -5 🙁
-
What websites need are *stronger* identities. Clearer highlighting of URLs and base domains. Google's inability to see this is a structural bias and why they shouldn't be trusted to set this agenda. A better web would have the browser bolding the base domain, not obscuring it.Permalink On twitter.com
❤️ 1 Favorite
Mood +3 🙂
-
So many bad actors *do* take advantage of confusion around URL schemes, but the solution is to strengthen the ID not alter the entire means of identity.Permalink On twitter.com
Mood +2 🙂