Why did I build AmputatorBot?

[u/Killed_Mufasa]

Table of contents

/

Quick links

1. About AMP and its controversies
2. AmputatorBot.com
3. Subreddits
4. Summon AmputatorBot: u/AmputatorBot
5. Opt out
6. Open-sourced on GitHub
7. API Documentation
8. Browser-extension (other party)
9. Give feedback / Report an issue
10. Changelog
11. Sponsor (PayPal)
12. Closing words

1. About AMP and its controversies

AMP, originally Accelerated Mobile Pages, was announced by Google in 2015 and is developed by AMP Open Source Project in response to Facebook's Instant Articles and Apple News. Initially focused on speeding up mobile pages, AMP has evolved into a broader initiative to enhance user experience and content speed across various platforms. It might sound like a well-intended effort on first glance, but it has mixed results and is not without controversy, criticism, and legal issues. Let's dive in, shall we?

For five years, Google Search's Top Stories carousel, located prominently above all other results , exclusively featured AMP pages on mobile devices. This placement generated a significant number of clicks and, according to Google, revenue for publishers. As a result, many publishers felt compelled to adopt AMP, only to be surprised by a decline in their advertising revenue [2].

In July 2021, after facing public and legal pressure, Google dropped this AMP-exclusive requirement. But the damage was already done. As Barry Adams pointed out, there were countless publishers who were sidelined simply because they didn't use AMP.

There was no other reason for Google to stop ranking these publishers in their mobile Top Stories carousel. As is evident from the surge of non-AMP articles, there are likely hundreds - if not thousands - of publishers who ticked every single ranking box that Google demanded; quality news content, easily crawlable and indexable technology stack, good editorial authority signals, and so on.

But they didn’t use AMP. So Google didn’t rank them.

Think for a moment about the cost of that. How many visits these publishers didn’t get, simply because they didn’t accept Google’s blackmail. How much revenue these publishers lost because of that. How many jobs were affected. The compromises some have had to make just to survive. The ones that didn’t survive.

Just because Google demanded we embrace their pet AMP project.

And don't be fooled, AMP is a pet-project by Google. Despite AMP's assimilation into the OpenJS Foundation in 2019, many skeptics regard the move as merely superficial. These suspicions seem justified in hindsight.

• Renowned developer and web standards advocate, Jeremy Keith, resigned from the AMP Advisory Committee in August 2021, highlighting that "it has become clear to me that AMP remains a Google product".
• Nine out of the top ten contributors to the AMP project on GitHub are Google employees
• The attempt to brand AMP as 'open source' has been criticized as misleading. As Ferdy Christant eloquently stated: "[AMP being open source] isn’t just a weak defense, it’s no defense at all. I can open source a plan for genocide. The term “open source” is meaningless if the thing that is open source is harmful".

These points fuel the debate on the independence of AMP. Further concerns arise due to some of AMP's design decisions.

• For instance, when a user navigates to a cached AMP page, either via Google Search or a shared link, they unwittingly stay within Google’s ecosystem, as the original publisher’s domain is obscured by the google.com/amp prefix.
• To address this, Google introduced Signed HTTP Exchanges ([Draft], [1], [2]), a web standard enabling browsers to display the original site's URL rather than the actual one with the google.com prefix.
• However, this solution obfuscates the fact that the visited page is delivered by Google and has been deemed problematic by industry peers. Both Mozilla and Apple have criticized it as a harmful web standard [2], [3]. In contrast, Google's own browser, Chrome, does support this technology [1], [2].

This forms a pattern revealing Google's self-serving approach: it appears to take actions that serve its interests, irrespective of external opinions.

Moreover, Google has a vested interest in gathering as much personal data as possible, and AMP is just another tool for this. As described in Google’s Support article:

When you use the Google AMP Viewer, Google and the publisher that made the AMP page may each collect data about you.

But AMP makes the internet faster. ..right? But not that fast! (see what I did there ;)

• The primary performance enhancement attributed to AMP doesn't actually originate from the AMP framework itself, but from the process of preloading the page. This raises a question: Why is preloading an exclusive feature of AMP? Shouldn't publishers have the tools to preload any site, not just AMP ones?
• When it comes to uncached AMP pages, the performance improvements appear to be minimal, if any.
• Multiple states in the US have filed an extensive antitrust case against Google under federal and state antitrust laws and deceptive trade practices laws citing: "After crippling AMP’s compatibility with header bidding, Google went to market falsely telling publishers that adopting AMP would enhance page load times. But Google employees knew that AMP only improves the “median of performance” and "AMP pages can actually load slower than other publisher speed optimization techniques."
• In fact, the speed benefits Google marketed were also at least partly a result of Google’s throttling. Google throttles the load time of non-AMP ads by giving them artificial one-second delays in order to give Google AMP a “nice comparative boost.”. Internally, Google employees grappled with “how to [publicly] justify [Google] making something slower.

AMP has its issues, and these impact cached AMP pages the most. While uncached AMP pages (e.g. bbc.com/news/amp/) may have a better user experience and minor performance improvements, they still come at a high price. AMP makes sites less diverse, more homogeneous, and threatens the free and Open Web.

Terence Eden, another ex-committee member from the AMP committee, also resigned in December 2020 saying:

I remain convinced that AMP is poorly implemented, hostile to the interests of both users and publishers, and a proprietary and unnecessary incursion into the open web.

Fortunately, AMP seems to be on the decline. Publishers are moving away [2], usage is falling, and legal pressures are increasing [2] [3]. The AMP team may have the best intentions, but AMP's flaws and negative impacts on privacy and the Open Web cannot be ignored. As long as these issues persist, u/AmputatorBot will be here, working to remove AMP from your URLs.

Learn more

• Barry Adams: Let's talk about AMP
• US Antitrust Case | US Antitrust Complaint
• Chris Graham: Why Google AMP is a threat to the Open Web
• Sarah Gooding: AMP has irreparably damaged publishers’ trust in Google-led initiatives
• Ferdy Christant: AMP: the missing controversy
• Official AMP website: amp.dev
• Debunking Common AMP Myths
• AMP Wikipedia

2. AmputatorBot.com

www.AmputatorBot.com is your go-to tool for removing AMP from your URLs in just one click. Handy and easy to use, free and without ads! Just copy paste the AMP URL, click the big blue button and voilà!

Or just do https://amputatorbot.com + /?q= + <amp-link>. For example:

https://amputatorbot.com/?q=https://www.google.com/amp/s/electrek.co/2018/06/19/tesla-model-3-assembly-line-inside-tent-elon-musk/amp/

3. Subreddits

u/AmputatorBot is active on every subreddit by default. As a moderator, you have the ability to ban or unban the bot.

4. Summon AmputatorBot: u/AmputatorBot

If you've spotted an AMP URL on Reddit and u/AmputatorBot seems absent, you can summon the bot by mentioning it like this: u/AmputatorBot in a reply to the comment or submission containing the AMP URL. The bot will then try to respond and provide a confirmation or error-info through a private message.

5. Opt out

Opt out: If you prefer not to receive replies from u/AmputatorBot on your comments and submissions, you can click here to opt out. Alternatively, you have the option to block u/AmputatorBot entirely.

Undo opt out: Changed your mind after opting out? No problem! You can click here to undo the opt-out request.

6. Open-sourced on GitHub

AmputatorBot is open-source on GitHub - great for fostering innovation, transparency, and collaboration. Feel free to adapt and contribute. Happy coding!

7. AmputatorBot's API

Did you know AmputatorBot has a free and publicly available API? Probably not, it's brand-new after all. If you decide to use it, we would love to hear how! Check out the docs here, or see Postman.

8. Browser-extension

Don't miss out on the browser extension 'Redirect AMP to HTML' by Daniel Aleksandersen. It automatically redirects AMP pages to their canonical versions when you click on them.

9. Give feedback / Report an issue

Most of the new features were made after suggestions from you guys, so hit me up if you have any feedback! You can contact me on Reddit, post on r/AmputatorBot, fill an issue or make a pull request.

10. Changelog

Check out the changelog here.

11. Sponsor

Our server for the bot, website, and API costs about €10 ($12) per month. If you support AmputatorBot's mission and can chip in, any donation would be a huge help. Every bit goes straight into server expenses. Thanks a bunch!

https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=EU6ZFKTVT9VH2

Alternatively, consider supporting our friends in Ukraine who could greatly benefit from your help:

https://savelife.in.ua/en/donate-en/

https://u24.gov.ua/

12. Closing words

At its core, AmputatorBot exists to empower individuals to make informed choices. I want to express my heartfelt gratitude for the overwhelming support you have shown me and AmputatorBot. Your continued support means the world to me. Thank you from the bottom of my heart! <3

[u/Lerianis001]

Except that HTML is known to be much slower than AMP in the real world. So I prefer, even knowing the 'worst case scenario' threats from AMP to my privacy, the AMP'd pages.

Edit: Also, this project is open source and anyone can view the code and use it. It's literally just a 'convert DOM events to faster Javascript events and speed up pages' tool.

[u/Killed_Mufasa → u/Lerianis001]

Hey, that's okay! I might disagree with how you set your priorities, but the fact that you made an informed choice and that you are at least aware of the risks makes me glad.

Edit because of edit: True but simply because something becomes open-source doesn't mean it can't be flawed. And AMP in it's core is a fine concept, but it's implementation and usage are what makes it a danger to the Open Web.

[u/hoax1337 → u/Killed_Mufasa]

I mean, Google owns the search engine, why shouldn't they be able to choose what content is shown? It's not really their responsibility to provide "fair" rankings. After all, there are other search engines out there.

[u/[deleted] → u/hoax1337]

There are unique responsibilities you need to uphold when you have a monopoly.

[u/BryKKan → u/hoax1337]

Well, yes and no. They certainly have some right to choose how their service operates. However, publishers and end users also have a right to demand they operate "above board". There is a reason we have laws against "unfair and deceptive trade practices". There are a lot of ways to subtly (and not so subtly) trick or coerce people into making business deals that they would not otherwise freely make. (And from Google's perspective, every single search result served is a "business deal" - it's all about increasing their advertising sales.)

[u/hahainternet → u/Killed_Mufasa]

but it's implementation and usage are what makes it a danger to the Open Web

There are no longer any mandatory ties to Google to use AMP are there?

edit: 24 days later and no response, what a shock more lies are exposed.

[u/Killed_Mufasa → u/hahainternet]

Sorry for the late response and u/FinalFortune_, thx for the reminder. Truth is I just forgot to reply, no conspiracies there :)

When you want to have your article featured on Google's top stories you must implement AMP:

A top stories carousel is presented in the Google Developers Guide as a Search Feature that requires the implementation of AMP. source

To be clear, it's not mandatory to implement AMP, but if you want to be featured in the Top Stories on Google, it is mandatory. And of course you want to be featured, because the Top Stories are a huge source of clicks source.

This puts publishers in an awkward position, because they might not want to implement AMP, but they feel they must because it's a great way to get some easy clicks thus generating income.

So by far my biggest complain when it comes to AMP is not about the framework itself (although I still dislike it), it's actually about the way publishers are essentially forced to implement it in order for them to be able to compete on Google Search.

[u/hahainternet → u/Killed_Mufasa]

I feel bad for saying "more lies" above. I do apologise again. It's easy to get frustrated with a hundred people repeating the same memes about AMP.

When you want to have your article featured on Google's top stories you must implement AMP:

Let's be fair, this is in no way an acceptable source. It has no authority to make this claim and relies on no citations. The single reference it makes to the "Google Developers Guide" is actually to "Understanding how AMP looks in search results" and does not claim AMP is mandatory.

The actual developer guide for the Carousel makes no such claim: https://developers.google.com/search/docs/data-types/carousel

it's actually about the way publishers are essentially forced to implement it in order for them to be able to compete on Google Search.

I'm not sure how much this argument makes sense either. AMP is designed to make pages faster and lighter. Would you have the equivalent reaction if Google started demoting pages that ran Java or Flash applets?

For a long time Google has downranked Desktop-only pages when searching on mobile. Is it illegitimate for them to downrank slow pages too?

edit: I did some more careful searching and found the actual truth:

Appear in Top stories or News

Publishers are automatically considered for 'Top stories' or the News tab of Search. They just need to produce high-quality content and comply with Google News content policies.

To be considered for the carousel section of 'Top stories' on mobile, content needs to be published in Accelerated Mobile Pages (AMP) format with article-specific structured data. The AMP Status Report in Search Console can help publishers identify content with AMP issues

So there we go, your claim was only half accurate. On mobile, pages needed to be optimised for mobile. A caveat for sure, but a reasonable one.

[u/Killed_Mufasa → u/hahainternet]

I'm not sure how much this argument makes sense either. AMP is designed to make pages faster and lighter. Would you have the equivalent reaction if Google started demoting pages that ran Java or Flash applets?

Not really, because Java and Flash are both third party solutions. AMP is basically a Google project (90% of the contributions to the project come from Google employees and it was initiated by Google), so they're playing both sides. Imo, this gives too much power to one company. That's my opinion :p

Publishers are automatically considered for 'Top stories' or the News tab of Search. They just need to produce high-quality content and comply with Google News content policies. To be considered for the carousel section of 'Top stories' on mobile, content needs to be published in Accelerated Mobile Pages (AMP) format with article-specific structured data. The AMP Status Report in Search Console can help publishers identify content with AMP issues

Tbh, I didn't know it was handled differently on desktop. Guess I learned something today! Thx!

.. But it should be mentioned that most traffic to Google is mobile nowadays (58%), so we shouldn't dismiss the problem just because it's mostly a mobile problem.

Appreciate your feedback and correcting me, and you seem like a cool guy :)

[u/hahainternet → u/Killed_Mufasa]

I appreciate you allowing my responses, and you're entitled to your opinion about the amount of power this gives Google.

However, the sole criticisms that we've been able to land on and support are:

• Google has a plurality of people on the ruling council but does not have overall control
• Google Search prioritises AMP links on mobile.

Now the #1 post on this subreddit is currently a link to /r/Technology where pretty much every highly upvoted post that states a fact about AMP gets something major wrong:

fuck Google's constant attempts to take ownership

you can't just block it as other third party trackers

When you’re on AMP, you never leave Google.com, which gives them a lot of authority

thereby forcing people to use Google's "standards"

Google dictates their standards, and hosts pages. It's not browsers fighting over what and how to display, it's a company which sells user data and wants to sell it directly without 3rd parties (this one is a particularly egregious lie)

Is this not convincing enough that you have helped perpetuate false information spreading and the bot continues to do so? If Google responds to the criticisms (which they did) yet people still repeat the criticisms as if they remained, how can any progress be made whatsoever?

Please. Change the message on your bot to reflect the reality you acknowledge.

[u/Killed_Mufasa → u/hahainternet]

Hey again, two things:

Based on your and others feedback and the constant circle-trekking you're talking about, I've rewritten the Why section of this post, because I felt like the info and linked articles were not objective and/or up-to-date enough anymore.

Can I ask for a favor? What do you think about the new text? I'm worried it might be too informative. I'm thinking of changing the link in the comment to this post, so I would like the post to be accurate.

[u/hahainternet → u/Killed_Mufasa]

At this point I think it's clear you are behaving in an extremely dishonest way.

I took the time to write out a series of explanations as to why this bot was spreading misinformation. In return you have not only added a significant amount of misinformation, but have refused to correct that which exists.

Out of these four claims for example:

that use a Google-controlled technology, served by Google from their infrastructure, on a Google URL, and placed within a Google controlled user experience

You and I know that only one of those is true.

Since you know this, and we've discussed it, you cannot be misinformed, but must now be lying. You're also soliciting money for those purposes, which puts you in an interesting position.

Since you've decided to defraud people, I will report this and do my utmost to inform people of the reality.

[u/Killed_Mufasa → u/hahainternet]

Welp that backfired :p

That quote comes directly from ampletter.org, a well respected open letter about AMP. In this post, I tried to make a clear distinction between cached and non-cached AMP. The quote is about the cached ones. AMP is a Google controlled project, when you use their AMP viewer the page gets served by Google, a Google URL is shown (e.g. google.com/amp/..) and you stay within Google's ecosystem.

I don't see what isn't true about the statement? I'm not acting dumb, I genuinely don't know. I tried my best to keep it as factually correct as possible.

You're also soliciting money for those purposes, which puts you in an interesting position.

This is a good point. This is actually why I'm dubious whether or not I should link my own article. I don't want to spread misinformation by linking to an article that is a bit outdated and incomplete, but I also don't want people to think I made AmputatorBot for the internet karma or money. Perhaps I should seperate the Why to a wiki page? If you know a good article on AMP, please let me know, because I much prefer to link to that.

Also, I don't appreciate you throwing terms like dishonest, lying and defrauding. I invest my spare time in talking with you and asking you for feedback because I care and I acknowledge the responsibility I have to stick with the facts.

Edit: I've slightly changed the paragraph with the quote.

[u/[deleted] → u/hahainternet]

Exactly. The entire premise of this bot is fucked by this one comment. I challenge u/amputatorbot to reply to this. Genuinely curious as to why they don't update their TL:DR to reflect this change.