1. 1

  2. 1

    “it is not acceptable to display a page that carries only third-party branding on what is actually a Google URL”

    That seems like an odd position to take. The early Web was filled with people hosting their own content on their ISP using Apache’s /~username feature.

    1. 2

      you consider /~username to be an “apache URL” in the same way https://google.com/ is a google URL? or am i misunderstanding?

      1. 4

        He considers foobar.com/~username a foobar.com URL, in the same way that the article considers google.com/amp/webpage a Google URL.

        1. 1

          that makes sense. i think the point is that when users click in a link from a google search result, the lack of google branding on an amp page may give the impression that the user has left the google bubble, when in fact they haven’t.