"Google wants to kill the URL"


"People have a really hard time understanding URLs" is not a good enough reason to get rid of URLs

To this day, I refuse to use an AMP specific webpage as it breaks the open web. When I'm presented with an AMP link, I edit the URL to remove that component so I get the full page. "Safe" URLs will similarly cater to Google interests and I will not be using it

If other vendors go along with this, I'll write my own browser if I have to

@cypnk write an HTML 2.0 with RFCs browser, mandate that all URLs that it accesses are in the format: http(s)://(optional hostname.)domain.tld/~(rest of URL)


First, I don't think a "technical lead" (bullshit buzzword) shouldn't say or support shit like ""People have a really hard time understanding URLs".

Second, it's just the usual "replace thing a with thing b" method occurring all the time.

Who comes up with this shit? I have never come across a single person who didn't understand what a URL is. Maybe they didn't know it was called a URL but they know you type to get to the site of whatever thing.

@cypnk Any browser that does not let me use URLs is a browser that I will never use. And considering how Google is behind this scheme, any browser that goes along with this plan is a browser I will never use, recommend, or even talk about. The Alphabet Panopticon is large enough without letting Google sneak its tendrils into how we have fundamentally accessed sites for decades.

@cypnk "People have a really hard time understanding URLs"

Well, fuck, people have a really hard time understanding nuclear physics. Let's get rid of all the nuclear research and nuclear power stations and go back to coal and oil.

Oh, wait... Someone IS actually proposing exactly that.

@drequivalent @cypnk nuclear research in suitably contained facilities is ok. But nuclear power stations never should have been set up, and need to go ASAP. They were created to refine fissionable materials for bombs, generating electricity was just an excuse, as became clear when Iran starting developing them. There is still no safe way to dispose of the radioactive waste they churn out. Plants have a useful life of about 50 years, and then need to be contained for 1000s of years.

@drequivalent @cypnk basically, they're the most stupidly dangerous way of boiling water anyone ever came up with. They're ecocidal steam age technology that doesn't belong in the 21st century.

@strypey @cypnk Nuclear power is actually the cleanest and cheapest source of energy available to date.
Although, I must admit that there are safety concerns, but that's purely thanks to the fact that cold war was needed to be kept cold, and then ever power-hungry military industrial complex took hold of nuclear research.
There were two projects for fission reactors in the 1950s: light water reactors (typical for today, using Uranium cycle) and molten salt reactors. And while both were successful at generating power (Oak Ridge molten salt testbed, for example ran for five years producing around 7.5 MW), US Military tipped the scale in favor of light water reactors, because this type of reactors were able to breed Plutonium which was needed for nuclear weapon programme.
Now, MSRs look awesome. They are a lot safer, you can't breed weapons-grade material on them, they run use Thorium-Uranium cycle (Th is abundant compared to U), and they also can burn a lot of BS after LWRs. Google them.

@drequivalent @cypnk yeah I've been down the thorium/ molten salt rabbit hole. They still produce waste and decommissioned plants that need containment for 1000s of years. There are people working on how to make signs durable enough to warn future civilizations of the danger, in iconography they can read. Imagine if the pyramids had been nuclear power plants and all the hieroglyphs said "stay the fuck away from this!"

@drequivalent @cypnk as mentioned in the follow-up, molten salt solar towers. Solar arrays over water (eg I've seen them over fish farms in China, reducing algal blooms). Wind trees ( Bio-gas from food and garden waste (

@drequivalent @cypnk most importantly, reduction in the amount of energy needlessly consumed. There are figures around about how many barrels of mined oil are used in the industrial food system for each kg of food they produce. I'm sure there are heaps of similar wastes of electricity, eg using electricity to heat water instead of sunlight. Both NZ and China have a lot of roof-mounted direct solar hot water heaters, which work well even in relatively cold cities.

@strypey @cypnk
> most importantly, reduction in the amount of energy needlessly consumed.

Prescriptive measures don't get us anywhere. People want lights on, water boiled, homes heated, engines running and computers computing. That's all they care about, and that's not about to change.
Solar towers look great, I like them, they are kinda easy and cheap to build - all you need is a huge swath of land and couple thousand mirrors. The question is - will they be able to feed major cities like New York or Moscow or Tokyo?

@drequivalent @cypnk the majority of energy use is not by householders making individual decisions. It's embedded in decisions already made by industry when products/ services arrive at the point-of-use, eg when houses are built, are they insulated and double-glazed, or will energy be poured in heating them and the surrounding area as it leaks out? What is the energy used in commercial food production? Many efficiencies can be gained here, and it will be necessary.

@strypey @cypnk so you are proposing rebuilding whole cities so they consume less energy, that's wonderful. But you will actually lose more energy in the process of rebuilding. It's like buying an electric car while you have your petroleum car running: it's only environmentally feasible if your old car is actually, truly FUBAR, else - you should keep it.

@drequivalent @cypnk whole cities do get rebuilt every couple of generations. It just happens bit by bit, so you don't notice. Obviously I'm not proposing a scorched earth approach, and some energy efficiency (and energy generation) tech can be retro-fitted to existing buildings. Eg people remove existing wooden windows to replace with less draughty aluminium joinery. Why not double or triple glaze in the process?

@drequivalent @cypnk but you're kind of nit-picking one of my examples. My point is that there are lots of things businesses do, on a cyclic basis, that could be radically changed to reduce energy wastage, and/or turn wasted energy back into work done (eg use waste heat to boil water to ... make electricity), and lots of businesses are actually doing this stuff all the time.

@strypey @cypnk Well, from what I see, double-glazing is kinda standard by now, as much as you actually have a problem finding wooden windows in hardware stores now, so there.

@drequivalent @cypnk why you do need a huge swathe of land? If you want electricity in a big city, why not put the solar towers on the roofs of all the buildings? As well as wind trees in all the streets (which could be public wifi towers as well, just spitballing here), or the sides of buildings. Huge amounts of kwh are lost in long distance transmission.

@rugk @strypey @drequivalent One of the things I love about this community is how passionate people are about their topics of interest ;)

But notice, everyone is still composed while presenting their argument. I love it!

@cypnk @rugk @strypey

> But notice, everyone is still composed while presenting their argument. I love it!

Yes, as a rule. I'd love to have it stay that way.

@drequivalent @cypnk Molten salt solar towers are more more efficient and produce no radioactive waste. Thorium is still not sustainable technology, it's a red herring being pushed by PR companies working for Big Nuclear to keep their dying business alive. The future of electricity is distributed generation from diverse, renewable sources, as close as possible to the point-of-use.

@strypey @cypnk Looks cool. Wouldn't work everywhere or always, but looks cool. How much does one produce on average?

@cypnk I apologize in for derailing the conversation, I was not making an energy production point, I was making "haha, let's get rid of basic necessity of the modren world because of public ignorance" point.

And how it is actually coming to that judging by today's politics.

@drequivalent No worries, I learned something new today. My suggestion for anyone in my mentions is to keep me tagged when in doubt. Either I’ll learn something or I can ignore, but I don’t want to lose the opportunity regardless

@cypnk @drequivalent that's how I feel! If I want to be untagged, I'll say so. But I find if I avoid following too many anime avatars, and reacting to pointless shitposting, I don't end flooded in @mentions I don't want.

@cypnk @drequivalent the fediverse (dang, the net in general) is at its best when I can sit back and watch two (or more) intelligent, well informed people debate a topic that really care about in good faith, and chuck my 2 cents worth in if it becomes relevant. It really restores my faith in humanity.

@cypnk @drequivalent on that note, I been glued to this ting for way more hours than is healthy for a human (thus all the typos). I got to sleep for a few hours. Goodnight all.


Seemed pretty vague to me, but I read this as:
"Just search Google to find all your sites! No-one types URL's anymore! Just use Google, everyone uses Google! Surely everything you want is indexed good 'nuff on Google, because... Google is the best!"

@cypnk AMP is an open standard. How does it break the open web?

@tw This is preferential for Google’s content analysis (in order for better search placement) which artificially constrains designs and page strictures, leaving presentation looking similar or largely the same

The “standard” is not the problem. Implementing it for the sake of a single entity is a big problem, no matter their market penetration

Office Open XML also became an ISO standard because Microsoft Office is widespread. AMP is the same for the web

@cypnk I do the same thing! I totally can't stand the AMP versions — they always look super weird to me. Not like a real website at all.

@cypnk Didn't they say for years that people don't need URLs since most use search anyway? (Which sadly is true - I've even given up to tell my partner to not put URLs into the damn search field by now.)
I assume that Google wants to get rid of URLs because that's one of the things they don't control yet.

@galaxis Yup. This is to control access to that last bit users can still change manually

People are people and sometimes old habits are hard to get rid of

Sign in to participate in the conversation

Follow friends and discover new ones. Publish anything you want: links, pictures, text, video. This server is run by the main developers of the Mastodon project. Everyone is welcome as long as you follow our code of conduct!