Google is not even hiding their efforts in controlling the internet and holding sites for ransom:

https://theverge.com/2019/11/...

They will happily put a "badge of shame" on slow loading sites and I think this is just to force more sites to use AMP.

Fuck google. and I mean it. Firefox really is the last "FREE" browser available for us who care about this shit.

on the other hand, I hate the whole "Modern Web" shit. So if what google is doing will take it down then by all means, go fuck it up google.

What if it will force Dev to build a better website instead of monolithic ones with autoplay and all?. Just asking though.

@shiv7071007 it is not the devs that put that shit there... it is marketing and analytics assholes. Those are the bitches forcing devs to do this shit.
Google making this move now after AMP has been criticized heavily is just oh so convenient.

This is next level shit. Google seriously needs to be stopped, but people don't care. People only care when something big like Facebook happens = when it is too late.

I can already see their ads and tag manager will be excluded from these metrics and "totally fine".

I assume that YouTube will be exempt from the slow-loading badge even though I have endless problems with the site.

On the flip side, I seriously doubt anyone would actually give a shit.

Flash preloaders are back yay !

What’s left ?
Right click with google ads ? 😂

The prospect of WebAssembly still scares me.

Wait a sec, y'all ranting about a company doing what they want with their own product?

@shiv7071007 Who cares how long it takes to load a website? It's the content I'm interested in.

If it's unusable because of loading times, I leave it, but I don't need a browser to tell me which sites are "good" or "bad".

@nitwhiz Yes it's their product, but with the market share, they have the actual potential to put pressure on site owners. Especially as the big companies with big budgets will find their way to be listed as "good", whereas smaller sites may not have the chance.

And it's the same with all these badges, people don't know the exact meaning and at the end there are lots of silly interpretations out of touch with reality.

Ask me and I will tell you that's a good to have feature for a user who can't decipher b/w a slow network connection and a poorly built website designed to waste time.
As a developer i see it as a challenge to pull up pants and optimize codebase.

I won't be surprise if Firefox follows the trend and opera joins the relay as we saw same for Chrome Omnibox.

Edge is on its way ransacking duplicated features of all browsers and it's nothing new with Chrome always wanting to stay unique.

I think this is a good move. Remember that without Google, we'd still have tons of idiots who "don't need https" on their sites. And http/2 addressing latency also originated from Google.

The AMP criticism is nonsense in this regard. Most of AMP's speed comes from the framework not allowing to include megabytes of useless shit, which is fully possible without AMP.

@ddephor It's not an issue of budget. It's an issue of putting too much useless shit into websites, and if anything, companies with big budget and powerful marketing departments are more and not less prone to this crap.

With careful design a "this website can take a while" could tell the visitors to wait a moment for the site to load and not leave immediately.

On the other hand, it may keep consumers away.

@Fast-Nop Exactly! I could say more but your comment is perfectly on the point. 👌

@Root this is worth reading

https://bytecodealliance.org/articl...

@Fast-Nop sadly, we'd still have tons of "https isn't really needed always in my particular case so particular and specific" idiots :(

They should put this message on youtube "we slow down this website on competitors browsers"

@sbiewald With careful design, no website should need a while, that's the point.

@sebach1 True, but commercial actors got smacked by the SEO impact of https, and the private noobs get https automatically and for free by their hosting providers. Except with shitty providers and users too stupid to change the hosting company.

I both hate and support this move!

Shaming sites is obviously not an amazing idea. Especially if their speed issues are due to DNS problems, hosting, server location, or other technical reasons.... But on the other hand:

Usually i just want to read an article. Or a rant, or an SO question. Occasionally videos or pictures, but honestly text is where it's at. And I can't read that text cause I have to wait for 17 animated gif ads for shit I don't want, a cookie banner, a full screen ad (or a "please turn off your adblocker. We will not show you anything at all until you do", so you turn it off, and THEN a full screen ad) and some JavaScript bullshit that dynamically loads some heavy widget you don't give a fuck about or a framework that they use literally one function from.

If this punishes sites who bloat their content with several megs of ads and iframes, and makes management reconsider, them I'm all for it.

@deadPix3l if it's done correctly yes... but I bet that for example youtube loading slowly on purpose on competitor browser because of scroogle practice, will be no threated the same as other compay websites