<story><title>I decided to disable AMP on my site</title><url>https://www.alexkras.com/i-decided-to-disable-amp-on-my-site/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>AznHisoka</author><text>AMP does not seem like a walled garden tech. any crawler can find and use the AMP version of a page through this tag:&lt;p&gt;&amp;lt;link rel=&amp;quot;amphtml&amp;quot; href=&amp;quot;&lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.example.com&amp;#x2F;url&amp;#x2F;to&amp;#x2F;amp&amp;#x2F;document.html&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.example.com&amp;#x2F;url&amp;#x2F;to&amp;#x2F;amp&amp;#x2F;document.html&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;Thus all google is doing is rewarding sites that have implemented this and as a result load fast, no? imo, its drastically different to Instant Articles because you can never ever find the Instant Articles version of a web page. its private and only fb knows it.</text></item><item><author>chris__butters</author><text>Completely agree, while technically AMP is suitable but it creates a walled garden by using Google - who actually boost page rankings if you use it, so they have publishers by the balls &amp;quot;forcing&amp;quot; them to use AMP to get higher in their rankings.</text></item><item><author>boramalper</author><text>The author has some very valid points against AMP from a technical standpoint, but for me there is a single reason that is sufficient: &lt;i&gt;the Web is, and should stay, free and open&lt;/i&gt;. Indeed, I&amp;#x27;m having really hard time trying to understand how people can be fine with AMP while fighting for the net neutrality and so on.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>boramalper</author><text>I am not saying exactly that Google is evil, and maybe they don&amp;#x27;t even have bad intentions (heck, we are talking about a corporate identity here, how far can we apply morals?). But, what I am thinking is that AMP and its rivals (such as Instant Articles) hurt the free &amp;amp; open Web. For instance, Google Search is invaluable, but as a side effect, a website that doesn&amp;#x27;t end up on the first page of a Google Search result for instance, is nearly non-existent.&lt;p&gt;Also, the notion of &lt;i&gt;hyperlinks&lt;/i&gt; are &lt;i&gt;crucial&lt;/i&gt; to the Web and these projects break it. Hyperlinks originate from an article from 1945, &amp;quot;As We May Think&amp;quot;[1], and the term itself is coined by Ted Nelson in 1965 for Project Xanadu. That&amp;#x27;s how you create a &lt;i&gt;web&lt;/i&gt; that is now called &lt;i&gt;the Web&lt;/i&gt;. That&amp;#x27;s also what Google&amp;#x27;s PageRank algorithm depends on, at least at the beginning. Now, letting Google host your content, under a link such as `&lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.google.com&amp;#x2F;amp&amp;#x2F;www.example.com&amp;#x2F;amp&amp;#x2F;doc.html`&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.google.com&amp;#x2F;amp&amp;#x2F;www.example.com&amp;#x2F;amp&amp;#x2F;doc.html`&lt;/a&gt;, you are breaking hyperlinks: it is no more linking different websites together.&lt;p&gt;[1]: &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.theatlantic.com&amp;#x2F;magazine&amp;#x2F;archive&amp;#x2F;1945&amp;#x2F;07&amp;#x2F;as-we-may-think&amp;#x2F;303881&amp;#x2F;&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.theatlantic.com&amp;#x2F;magazine&amp;#x2F;archive&amp;#x2F;1945&amp;#x2F;07&amp;#x2F;as-we-m...&lt;/a&gt;</text></comment>
<story><title>I decided to disable AMP on my site</title><url>https://www.alexkras.com/i-decided-to-disable-amp-on-my-site/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>AznHisoka</author><text>AMP does not seem like a walled garden tech. any crawler can find and use the AMP version of a page through this tag:&lt;p&gt;&amp;lt;link rel=&amp;quot;amphtml&amp;quot; href=&amp;quot;&lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.example.com&amp;#x2F;url&amp;#x2F;to&amp;#x2F;amp&amp;#x2F;document.html&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.example.com&amp;#x2F;url&amp;#x2F;to&amp;#x2F;amp&amp;#x2F;document.html&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;Thus all google is doing is rewarding sites that have implemented this and as a result load fast, no? imo, its drastically different to Instant Articles because you can never ever find the Instant Articles version of a web page. its private and only fb knows it.</text></item><item><author>chris__butters</author><text>Completely agree, while technically AMP is suitable but it creates a walled garden by using Google - who actually boost page rankings if you use it, so they have publishers by the balls &amp;quot;forcing&amp;quot; them to use AMP to get higher in their rankings.</text></item><item><author>boramalper</author><text>The author has some very valid points against AMP from a technical standpoint, but for me there is a single reason that is sufficient: &lt;i&gt;the Web is, and should stay, free and open&lt;/i&gt;. Indeed, I&amp;#x27;m having really hard time trying to understand how people can be fine with AMP while fighting for the net neutrality and so on.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>michaelt</author><text>Sites that are traditionally called walled gardens (facebook, AOL, compuserve...) often combine four features; (a) all the content is hosted under the walled garden&amp;#x27;s domain; (b) the walled garden designs key parts of the navigation and layout, understandably acting in their own interests; (c) the walled garden has content policies and declines to host certain content; and (d) users must have accounts and be logged in to see the content.&lt;p&gt;AMP does (a) and (b); I don&amp;#x27;t know about (c); and doesn&amp;#x27;t do (d).&lt;p&gt;Still, I can see why people see echos of walled gardens in AMP.</text></comment>