I could have believed that a few years ago. I find it very un-credible that the banners continue purely due to inertia.
-
-
How do you feel about http://google.com significantly incentivizing AMP pages served on http://google.com domains?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @wycats
Misstep to put AMP cache on http://google.com . Mechanisms should have existed (do they now?) to make sharing the non-AMP URL default.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mbleigh
I could accept preferring fast sites, but preferring and actually speeding up sites served using Google tech via Google domains seems bad.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
I don't attribute any of this to bad faith but I do think that good faith discussions too often result in problematic decisions at Google.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @wycats
Fair enough. Great power, great responsibility, etc. I've seen things change when these missteps are pointed out. Hard balance to strike.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
On the one hand Google has optics into problems and means to try to solve. On other is too big to move fast without collateral damage.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mbleigh
Great powers treat collateral damage as something to minimize as close to 0 as possible. Even FB abandoned "break things"
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @wycats
I believe Google does try to minimize damage, and has a culture of calling bullshit (internally) on user-hostile decisions.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mbleigh
I honestly think that the existence of that culture is too often perceived to be enough when real action is needed.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
"you'd be surprised at how many people disagree with that inside Google" doesn't change the effects of problematic decisions.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.