I think that Google is a big organization and the fact that the search team thinks that AMP is a good idea is not necessarily evidence that the Chrome team does - or even if they do, that they'd want to let AMP be considered as some origin other than google.com. For instance:
- Google's phishing quiz https://phishingquiz.withgoogle.com has a question where the right answer is that a URL that starts with google.com is actually an AMP page for a URL shortener that sends you to a Google login phishing page.
- The Chrome team's document about displaying URLs https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/master/docs... is at best neutral on the case where "a domain owner is willing to supply content from a third-party within their own address space," calling out AMP as a specific example of this, and pointing out (in the section "A Caveat on Security Sensitive Surfaces") that anything in the renderable area of the webpage is below the "line of death" and untrustworthy.
- Also I think I've seen Chrome developers tweet things that are less-than-happy about AMP, but I can't find them any more.
(That said, I do agree that we shouldn't be trusting Google to be stewards of the internet - and that is a huge part of the value Firefox provides, honestly - just that I think in this regard they're unlikely to abuse the trust.)
yup we're seeing product teams getting shit on all over every product space if they're not core. Amazon did the same thing to their UI/Search team with their sponsored results that turned web/app search into a massive clusterfuck of unrelated "Promoted" items
And that is why I buy less and less on Amazon. If I don't have an exact product number, searching on Amazon is a painful waste of time.
So I search on Google or eBay, find a product number, run a search in Amazon. Until a few years ago, that resulted in a cheaper price but now more often than not, Amazon is not the cheapest (even accounting for shipping); and increasingly they are no longer the fastest either.
I commend you for taking the complaint seriously, but Google Derangement Syndrome is epidemic on HN. Any conspiracy theory that reaches even Pizzagate levels of plausibility gets upvoted, including dross like the above.
- Google's phishing quiz https://phishingquiz.withgoogle.com has a question where the right answer is that a URL that starts with google.com is actually an AMP page for a URL shortener that sends you to a Google login phishing page.
- The Chrome team's document about displaying URLs https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/master/docs... is at best neutral on the case where "a domain owner is willing to supply content from a third-party within their own address space," calling out AMP as a specific example of this, and pointing out (in the section "A Caveat on Security Sensitive Surfaces") that anything in the renderable area of the webpage is below the "line of death" and untrustworthy.
- Google search once penalized Google Chrome for breaking SEO rules. https://searchengineland.com/google-chrome-page-will-have-pa...
- Also I think I've seen Chrome developers tweet things that are less-than-happy about AMP, but I can't find them any more.
(That said, I do agree that we shouldn't be trusting Google to be stewards of the internet - and that is a huge part of the value Firefox provides, honestly - just that I think in this regard they're unlikely to abuse the trust.)