Hacker News Reader

Comment by seelmobile | Hacker News Reader

[Google employee, opinions are my own]

This was 'fixed' by Signed Exchanges[0] which sites can implement. This is (imho) a cool new web tech that got drowned out in the AMP noise.

[0] https://web.dev/signed-exchanges/

View on HN

PS: AMP is such as ludicrous over-reach by Google that I think it'll be one of the key pieces of evidence used to demonstrate the need to break up Alphabet into separate companies.

Maybe you should reach out internally and ask if it's really worth it?

There's always a point where the Government steps in. Don't think you're immune. Don't think that just because you've gotten away with it thus far that anything you do will be tolerated by the public forever.

Last I checked, this feature is paywalled behind specific certificate authorities.

Any news on that?

It's a thing only Google wants, so it'll be an interesting flex of their monopoly powers if it goes anywhere

Very similar to what they tried and failed to do with FLOC

I suspect Google is solidly in too many anti-competitive crosshairs around the world to be able to pull anything like this off.

I don't work in this space and hadn't heard of it this. A quick search suggests LetsEncrypt and Mozilla are intentionally not implementing support: https://community.letsencrypt.org/t/cansignhttpexchanges/153...

Google wanting things, (ab)using their position as the most popular browser to get an implementation out there before there is a standard, then getting surprised that others don't want it. FLoC all over again.

Thank you for the reply, I was kindof expecting that this would play out as such. I am very excited for the future of browsers and web protocols, but some of them are so exclusive and heavy-handed by Google that I worry.

Google needs to continue their developer relations efforts. I think they want to be on the same team as "us", from a technology perspective. Perhaps if only for the sake of adoption.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com