Brave, DuckDuckGo to unplug Google's AMP where possible Brave, the browser maker, and DuckDuckGo, the web search service, have both taken aim at AMP, Google's controversial web publishing framework. Brave on Tuesday introduced a feature called De-AMP that lets those using the Brave browser avoid Google-hosted AMP pages and go straight to publisher content on standard web pages. De …
You missed a few details but, no, Google doesn't want Javascript they want Googlescript.
AMP is clearly a monopolistic "cache" grab and anyone not understanding that is complete technical illiterate. You don't need to understand much at all to understand that if all your beer is in the fridge, the fridge controls all your beer... AMP is pretty straight forward in not hiding it's a monopoly attempt.
Also, I'm not sure what disabling Javascript in the header does for Google when the entire file is already stored in their cache, hence Google already owns you at that point so why do they bother disabling it?
Try this https://projectsstatic.bentasker.co.uk/MISC/MISC25/bad.html
It's a test page I created when I made FKAMP.
You *should* end up on good.html rather than bad.html (the AMP version), at least if my reading of how De-AMP handles that scenario is correct
Firefox Mobile 98.3's Add-ons Manager, at least on my device, provides no add-on search function and only a very short list of installable add-ons. In this list, Redirect AMP to HTML is listed under "Not yet available: We're currently building support for an initial selection of Recommended Extensions". The last version it worked in for me was 69.
Oh I am certain that Google is absolutely right. AMP is definitely here to help make the web better - for Google.
The only way I would even start trusting Google on this matter is if it were proven that ad revenue on AMP pages was entirely sent to the original page owners.
That is obviously not what is happening. Google found a way to host popular pages on its own servers specifically in order to deprive web sites of ad revenue and rake it all in.
Somehow, I feel that that should result in a class action lawsuit - except hold the lawyers to a fixed revenue, not a (lion's) share of the spoils.
Considering amp pages are created by the original owners, one has to assume they see an advantage too — if only less bandwidth costs. I think they'd have switched off their own amp pages If their ad revenue had dried up.
Google could already take ad revenue away from website owners if they wanted, with or without AMP pages.
After all you have to trust Google to record the number of clicks on a advert to get your revenue, so if they wanted to skim off a few for there own coffers without paying the website owner they could already do that on every website with Google ads code on it.
Well, you can do that if you like but some of the stuff is useful and nice to look at. Life was simpler before there was TV, too.
If done correctly, the performance "hit" isn't significant. There's a huge difference between something like HTMX and many of the multi-MB "frameworks" that some lazy people favour.
I have a subscription to a national daily newspaper.
The site is only useable with NoScript. I am not so much referring to graphics, but to the huge list of 'advertising partners' where a script pulls them in and then those pull even more in.
When I look at blocked scripts for the top level domain, there are 5 or 6, but if I allow scripts, then the list grows to well over 50 and sends the cooling fan into overdrive.
All ads that suck bandwidth and power.
Oh, I use adblockers all the time and also find it despicable that paying subscribers are also supposed to be subjected to ads.
But that doesn't mean that Javascript per se is evil. For example, being able to validate forms during completion is a huge usability benefit. OK, arguably this is an example of one of the many deficiencies in forms, but current implementations require JS for real time feedback.
> If done correctly, the performance "hit" isn't significant.
Well, you underlined yourself why what you said is irrelevant: It's never done "correctly", it's driven by greed and as such always at the limit of bringing the whole page crashing down. Let's just pile another analytics script on it, and just another too... What else can we stuff into it?
Each time I disable NoScript on a commercial website my laptop's fans revs up to full power: All that processing power to display what is essentially a static page of text with some pictures? Come on!
(Didn't downvote you though.)
I've taken to switching TV channels when certain adverts come on and frequently I dont go back cos I've found something better. I've even taking to going to bed early to read having set the TV to record what I wanted to watch and the following day I can skip past 20 minutes of adverts. The kids seem to do the same on their various devices, or if the app wont allow they just switch to another app while the ads are on. I get the impression marketing may have just shat in its own bed and we are soon going to lose some really crap channels.
> marketing may have just shat in its own bed
That's all good and true, but the solution for them is very simple: Make so the victims can't escape. For instance by having ads on all channels at the exact same time, or by making time shifting difficult if not impossible by blurring the borders between ads and content (and so on).
Unfortunately the standard solution to a slave uprising isn't to set them free, it's simply to use stronger chains... Crime marketing pays, and as long as it does so, it will be gladly and assiduously committed.
switching TV channels
Problem is - and bearing in mind we're confined to a second-tier DTT transmitter at the moment so don't have a vast choice of channels - all the commercial channels seem to co-ordinate their ad breaks! Swap channels when an ad break starts and pretty much guaranteed that all the other channels are either already in their ad breaks or will start them within 30s.
Thank goodness for the BBC, for iPlayer and for the ability to time-shift "live" TV!
M.
Unfortunately that's an elitist 1% solution. I've been using it for many years myself, but I wouldn't dare suggest it to my friends and family, because they would be utterly lost on why this or that website is now broken, or what they should do about it.
It takes quite some insider knowledge to guess which of the half dozen blocked script domains you'll need to enable to get things to work again, a knowledge normal humans don't have, and definitely don't care to painfully acquire.
NoScript is a great tool, but it's definitely not for the general public.
Partial solution to that - and one I use at home - export your 'allows' list and import to new installations. Not really useful if they don't use the same websites as you.
Couple of easy to describe tricks (my kids have learned these) - first try just the same domain as the web page. If that doesn't work, look for anything with 'cdn' in the domain. Some pages using Cloudflare won't show without it, others will. Never allow anything with 'google' or 'ads' in the domain, except on the very rare occasion you need recapcha. Always try allows one at a time, even though it means multiple reloads. Always 'temporary' at first, especially if it's a one-off visit.
The trickiest ones are Sagepay, Arcot, Worldpay etc. which are only active in the pop-up frame launched by a web shop to take your card details. Very difficult to work that out first time around :-/
M.
> Not really useful if they don't use the same websites as you.
That's the problem. My old aunt does definitely not use the same websites than me... I even wonder if we have one website in common.
.
> easy to describe tricks
Here again, I would have to explain (and then explain again, and again) what a "domain" is (and still get the frequent panicky call that some website is broken).
That old aunt (80+, but still writing scientific books) is an excellent reality test. She has mastered writing on a computer, email and web browsing, even backing up her documents on an USB drive, but that's as far as she'll ever get.
Kids on the other hand have no problems learning new stuff, most kids at age 10 are perfectly comfortable around computers. The problem are the older people, those of the generations before personal computers and Internet became common, who are still the majority and don't seem to want to conveniently go away already...
I'm an exception because I took to computers in the 80ies, but I know people younger than me who barely manage.
Google excels at adding improvements & features that have a by-product of helping their advertising revenue. This is not new, they have been doing it for years.
Always the same story. "Find" a problem, and create a "fix" that benefits Google. DNS over HTTPS is another example. Create hysteria that your ISP is tracking your DNS lookups, and then build a fix into the browser that goes right around the local DNS. You know, the pesky local DNS that is blackholing all their advertisements & trackers. Sure, tech savvy users can turn it off, and Google knows most users are not tech savvy.
Some old farts will remember Internet Explorer versus Netscape. And here comes Chrome to make the world a better place. Same story every time. "Fix" a "problem" in a self-serving manner.
It was competitive pressure.
AMP, for all its privacy flaws, at the time was dramatically better in performance than the lethargic news publishers were capable of themselves.
Google's comment (added as an update to the article) about load time isn't an exaggeration - it went from dozens of seconds for a typical major news site to load on mobile, to about 2 or 3 seconds. News sites were forced to use it if they wanted to compete, due to their own ineptitude.
It stopped being an issue some years ago, of course, as publishers and their ad networks eventually copped on to themselves. But at the time, it was a major factor.
"Its goal, Google claims, is a better user experience because AMP pages load faster than web pages built with standard web technology."
But does it actually achieve that? It seems to me the only reason AMP pages load faster is because on poorly designed pages the bloat is pre-loaded. Websites with a modicum of thought and design put in load just fine without AMP. Then again bloat seems to be the name of the game nowadays with 30 to 50 scripts on a page being "normal" if you allow such a thing (go-go-gadget no-script).
"Engineers at Google designed AMP in partnership with publishers and other tech companies to help web pages load faster and improve the user experience on mobile devices – not to harm header bidding,"
No doubt header bidding was an afterthought or a happy co-incidence so not a word of untruth there. But Google clearly had a goal with AMP and it being PURELY helping publishers load pages faster does not seem to align with any possible goal of Google. Until you factor in the control it gives Google.
When dealing with ordinary people doing ordinary things, usually the rule of: ‘Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence.’ applies. When dealing with corporations or groups of people however the game changes. One can no longer assume or expect incompetence. Odds are someone in the group knows what he's doing at any one time. So the rules change and one has to become more Machiavellian in expectations: "Sometimes when I try to understand a person's motives, I play a little game. I assume the worst. What's the worst reason they could possibly have for saying what they say and doing what they do? Then I ask myself, 'How well does that reason explain what they say and what they do?'”
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
