[chii]

> I don't want my content restricted or hosted in Google's cache.

how is this different than using your own domain, but pointing it to a github.io page? Or using medium, but with your own domain (but still being served from medium's servers)?

Is it just google you're adverse to, or the entire idea of someone else hosting your content?

[48309248302]

1) I want full control over my servers and to not be penalized in search engines for not hosting my sites on Google. Where are the server-side logs?

2) I want full control over how I publish my sites with real web standards. AMP is not a web standard, it's a Google format that they are strong-arming people into using.

3) Mozilla considers Signed HTTP Exchanges harmful. This technology is as bad as what Microsoft was doing with IE in the old days.

4) I don't publish on Github pages, but if I did, I would still have a choice over which servers I put the sites on.

5) There shouldn't be a single company (or few companies) that dictates how we publish online.

6) Shame on the people who are splitting the web with this fake-opensource technology. There's even a Google engineer over here referring to the Web like it's a Google product. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19631136

[Operyl]

As per point 6, I wouldn’t take what was said there as a statement from Google, or potentially even an employee of Google. They did it as a throwaway .. anybody wishing to kick the hornets nest could have posted that, employee or not.

[48309248302]

It's not written like someone trying to kick a hornet's nest. It's written like someone who has been conditioned inside of a culture that has begun to view the Web as a Google product on some level.

[Operyl]

And if somebody was wanting to kick a hornets nest, that’s exactly how you’d want to write it :).

My point is, you cannot just blindly trust anonymous comments to be who they say they are, it’s an easy way to get yourself in trouble.

[laggyluke]

But if the comment was, say, digitally signed, on the other hand... ;)

[millstone]

DNS is the answer to the first two questions.

However the last question is a fair point - nobody complains about CloudFlare's caching of your web page as you designed it.

The critique of AMP is that it receives privileged placement in search results, and that content authors are being pressured into adopting this de-facto Google-controlled spec, where they host your content and control its presentation. Anything that furthers AMP helps Google in this effort.

[skybrian]

That's a good point! Domain owners can host their websites wherever they like, and yes that includes Google's cloud.

If they go through a content network like Cloudflare, you can't even tell who's hosting the site by looking at the IP address.

It drives home the point that websites are abstractions that have no necessary relationship to any particular physical hardware. Network tools may or may not tell you a bit more about the source, depending on if there are any leaks in the abstraction.

[48309248302]

There is a difference between the web publisher controlling that abstraction and a web publisher that has been strong armed into one abstraction or another.

[skybrian]

There are incentives, but publishers still make their own decisions.

[48309248302]

Being penalized in the search results is outright coercion, not an incentive.