Note archive: August 23rd, 2019

Replying to a tweet from @rem

Ooh! Colour me intrigued!

Gonna blog about it?

Replying to a tweet from @drinkerthinker

I want to go to there.

Replying to a tweet from @charlesarthur

By the way, Charles, the one comfort I can take about AMP is that every passing day brings us closer to its 1,459 day probability point.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/mar/22/google-keep-services-closed

Replying to a tweet from @rem

Here’s what I just got on web.dev …but no fireworks.

Here’s what I just got on web.dev …but no fireworks.

Replying to a tweet from @rem

One more point and there’ll be fireworks: https://adactio.com/notes/15620

Replying to a tweet from @adactio

Related: here’s what I’ve been reading, documented on my website:

https://adactio.com/notes/reading

Replying to a tweet from @adactio

So, just to be clear, while you might be capable of the mental gymnastics required to think “Well, leaving aside the unfairness of the SEO situation with AMP…”, I cannot do that.

I wish AMP would compete on its own merits.

Do it.

Please.

Replying to a tweet from @pbakaus

Me too! I would love to get behind AMP—a declarative framework where configuration happens in HTML rather than JavaScript: great!

But I cannot in good conscience support it while it is being unfairly prioritised and propped up in search.

Replying to a tweet from @pbakaus

It is not orthongonal as long as AMP is being privileged in search. This isn’t something you can just handwave away. The unfairness of it actively harms AMP-as-framework.

Replying to a tweet from @colly

Also YES

Replying to a tweet from @tobie

I have no problems with AMP, the open source format (accessibility issues notwithstanding).

I have no problems with AMP’s governance model.

I have serious problems with AMP’s privileged position in Google Search. It’s an abuse of power.

Replying to a tweet from @pbakaus

Agreed! Maintaining one site is nicer than two.

And yet publishers with already-fast sites (like The Guardian) are compelled to make AMP versions for the search benefits.

That’s not a side point—it is THE point!

Replying to a tweet from @voxpelli

I like it!

Replying to a tweet from @scottjehl

Yup! See you soon!

Replying to a tweet from @gregolls

Replying to a tweet from @pbakaus

…but if you use any framework other than AMP, you don’t get any of the Google Search benefits that are only bestowed on sites “choosing” to use AMP.

Hardly seems fair.

Replying to a tweet from @cramforce

Yowza!

Far from questioning AMP’s right to exist, I want it to exist and compete on a level playing field—without being propped up by an unfair advantage in search results.

Classic fascism, that.

Walking on the beach at sunset.

Walking on the beach at sunset.