Alright, an open-standard that allows Google to create a walled garden. But when has google ever been for an "open" internet? Never because an open internet doesn't make money, but then again that has never been Google's philosophy.
AMP does dictate the internet in a way that forces the user to see and do how Google wants you to see and do.
If Google was for open standards, I should have the ability to turn off google amp. No?
If Google was for open standards, they wouldn't force features upon users without the ability to turn them off?
If I host my own email server on my own IP range with in my colocation and send to GMAIL, I am instantly put in spam. Is that not dictating that my email to my mother is spam?
And yes, I'll admit that I am hypocrite. I use google search because it's the only search engine that yields the results I require. I try to use DDG when I can but that fails. Bing is a pile of puke. I don't want to, but I am forced to which fine, I understand the conditions that they give me. However to boast that Google is for opens standards. That's what's laughable.
Amp dictates the web and will as they see fit. But you work for google, so your bias anyway and that makes this whole discussion moot.
> Alright, an open-standard that allows Google to create a walled garden.
This doesn't make sense.
> AMP does dictate the internet in a way that forces the user to see and do how Google wants you to see and do.
This doesn't follow. AMP doesn't force the user to do anything. It encourages website creators to do specific things when building certain kinds of sites. And we're not even talking about AMP, but about signed exchanges.
> If Google was for open standards, I should have the ability to turn off google amp. No?
This doesn't follow. There are lots of open standards that you can't turn off (or that you suffer significant issues if you turn off). HTTPS, for example. Not to mention HTTP.
> If I host my own email server on my own IP range with in my colocation and send to GMAIL, I am instantly put in spam. Is that not dictating that my email to my mother is spam?
What does this have to do with AMP or Signed Exchanges? But also no. It's dictating that random email servers are almost always spam. This is both true and good for the vast majority of Gmail users, who don't have masochistic techy family members who want to host their own email server for indie-dev cred. There's nothing about this that isn't for open standards. It still uses all open standards, and is solved using open standards (DKIM, etc.). If you want to host your own email server, you need to be willing to put in the work. Unfortunately, it's a lot of work. That's not Google's fault, its spammers'.
> Amp dictates the web and will as they see fit.
In what way. You still haven't explained like, what the point is. What is the intent here? So far your post is just a bunch of scary sounding buzzwords, but you have yet to make a cohesive argument about what Google is doing and why this is a bad thing.
So here's some specific questions for you to answer: What is the walled garden you're accusing Google of creating? And again: how does an open standard allow Google to create it? And how does a walled garden let them "dictate how the internet operates?
When I pushed you to answer that question, you pivoted to entirely ignoring your previous argument and instead claimed that there were other situations where Google wasn't for open standards. That may be true, or not, but it's entirely irrelevant to your accusation that in this case, the open standard will let Google "dictate how the internet operates".
You need to draw the line from AMP to "dictate how the internet operates", and so far you've avoided actually making that connection when pressed.
I am not deliberately avoiding the connects. However I find interest in your passive-aggressive tone and that your working for a company with an agenda to take over the internet; so it seems, it goes hand in hand. Maybe I read your comment wrong but I take it as your assuming myself as masochistic and indie-dev, if so, please get terminology correct and call me cynical because I despise all; if not everything as I see "indie" as a fail of a word within internet terminology.
My philosophy is you should always build your own rather then jumping on the next bandwagon. You should always try to reinvent the wheel with your own tools but hey, what ever floats the boat. I loathe using github, I loathe instragram, facebook, et cetera. I run my infrastructure for what I think is for the good of the internet. I've been working as SysAdmin, SysOp, NetAdmin with colocatation of my own servers to ensure I have my own open internet space. I know how much work is required, it's not an easy quest and I know how shit the internet has become since the age of 13 when I had my first dedicated server at 14; I'm 31. But that's just my view and how I was brought up because frameworks did not exist back then. You made a product and then offered that for free. Infamously PHPNuke for CMS, e107, PHPBB. But Google doesn't even make it easy to work with. Almost as they don't want other people to operate the internet outside of their territory.
So lets ignore what I wrote. I wrote it without thought and more as a grunt as it is a Sunday, 1:24am (now 2:25am). I've not got the strongest skills in debate otherwise I would be a politician and in the morning I will probably face palm. So lets just jump to your questions and save the internet bandwidth. I'll agree to disagree.
> What is the walled garden you're accusing Google of creating?
I am accusing google of creating an closed ecosystem of google objects. Objects known as Gmail, GCloud, GAmp, YouTube, GplayStore, Adsense, Google Mobile Phones to name a few. that record, monitor, collect and sell users information for profit without knowledge of the user.
A walled garden is just a modern buzz word for "closed platform" which is where the service provider controls the data and data flow within. To which Google fits the criteria.
Some of them are services created are to provide the user and I would argue they lay a foundation of a trap to encourage the user to a following that google would like.
Such as
- Requiring to have a account for all services
- Google using the private data of these services with partnerships to create custom answers for the user
- Captcha
Got to stop robots somehow, but when its repeated for on every page by a service that google offers because your IP range isn't within Google's liked list. Most site use this service, which I'm sure you would argue is the owners choice.
> How does an open standard allow Google to create it?
Because someone has to create the standard in the first place. I could create a new protocol and brand it as open standard. The standards that google have are not open in the sense of transparency and that I feel are used for mistrust. They exist, you can use it for yourself, but the standard they created were forcefully to push everyone else in the same way
I am tired and want bed, it shows in this message. There is no point in continuing this debate because I won't change your mind and you won't change mine. I'm sure you'll take the stance of "I won" because that's the type of person you are. But I dislike google, Google is destroying the internet those too blind to see it, I pity them. What I've seen from the age of 13 to what I've seen now is not innovation its destruction. It's just regurgitated shite.
I'll agree to disagree, because I have my own views which I don't have time spending hours upon to make them expressible.
My original question was "How does [signed exchanges, which are] an open standard that, essentially, allows for CDNs to be more secure, let Google dictate how the internet operates?
You have said a lot of things, none of them have been about signed exchanges. Can you address that question instead of airing grievances about Google and the web as a whole?
What are you on? You gave me two questions, I answered them both.
Here are your exact words:
> So here's some specific questions for you to answer: What is the walled garden you're accusing Google of creating? And again: how does an open standard allow Google to create it? And how does a walled garden let them "dictate how the internet operates?
There are no question about signed exchanges in the above text.
I do not wish to continue on this debut. Have a nice day.
