[HN Gopher] The End of AMP?
___________________________________________________________________
The End of AMP?
Author : colinprince
Score : 175 points
Date : 2021-03-23 21:15 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.lafoo.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.lafoo.com)
| satyrnein wrote:
| Once AMP is not favored by Google Search, and ideally Signed
| Exchange works in all browsers (to fix the domain name issue),
| AMP might actually become an unambiguously good thing: just
| another option to speed your page up.
| tyingq wrote:
| Did Firefox and Apple change their position on signed
| exchanges? Both were pretty negative about it as I recall.
| jonnydubowsky wrote:
| The author of this post (Dwayne Lafleur) has a linked post on
| additional changes being made in the Google update.
|
| All pages with high Page Experience scores are eligible to be in
| the featured top news carousel.
|
| This effectively means that publishers will no longer be forced
| to use AMP and can instead provide fast, rich experiences on
| their own domains.
|
| His call to action is pretty straightforward:
|
| "Get to work right now to ensure that your site has a great user
| experience AND has a great user experience score. Avoid
| unnecessary JavaScript, plugins and bloat, and make your site
| easy-to-use". https://www.lafoo.com/javascript-is-driving-your-
| visitors-cr...
| millstone wrote:
| Google could defuse some of the AMP pushback by offering users a
| setting to disable it. Why haven't they done so?
| Lucasoato wrote:
| > Let me package that up for you - Google, the most dominant
| search engine globally - used that dominant market position to
| encourage publishers to adopt technology so that Google could
| store and serve publisher's content on Google's domain.
|
| It's absurd, how could regulators and authorities let this
| happen? Let's also mention how hard and counterintuitive is
| getting to the original site from the amp version.
| brutal_chaos_ wrote:
| Tech literacy isn't exactly rampant. It's sad really and part
| of the reason we have memes like the "internet is a series of
| tubes" and laws like the DMCA in the US.
| ocdtrekkie wrote:
| Literacy isn't the problem, campaign finance is. Google
| spreads around money to both sides of the aisle at basically
| the legal maximum level.
| godelmachine wrote:
| >> _Let 's also mention how hard and counterintuitive is
| getting to the original site from the amp version_
|
| I stopped using Chrome as my primary browser and moved to
| Firefox for exactly same reason - AMP.
| Angostura wrote:
| I simply moved to DDG as my default search engine on mobile
| for the same reason.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _how could regulators and authorities let this happen?_
|
| Tech companies were ridiculously popular until recently.
| turdnagel wrote:
| The unofficial motto of the tech industry is "ask for
| forgiveness, not permission."
| Barrin92 wrote:
| >how could regulators and authorities let this happen
|
| because they have been asleep at the wheel for almost two
| decades now, letting tech companies privatize and eat away at
| the open nature of the internet, so now we have to live in tech
| giant fiefdoms where they can determine the very form and
| content of everything displayed on the web because they're the
| ones who control every access point and standard.
| Lammy wrote:
| I'm curious why you assume it's accident or inaction. If I
| wanted to surveil Internet traffic with all five of my eyes,
| what better way would there be then rehosting all the content
| so people had to connect directly to me?
| noja wrote:
| > because they have been asleep at the wheel for almost two
| decades now
|
| Lobbying.
| toxik wrote:
| It's simply very difficult to regulate the internet, laws
| are an extremely blunt tool and while I agree that more
| could have been done, I'm also convinced that regulation
| would have stifled innovation.
|
| The AMP mess is not the death knell of the open internet,
| perhaps the sick idea of a rotting company
| treis wrote:
| For as much as I hate Amp it's way better than what came
| before it. Especially for ad heavy sites that typically rank
| high in Google searches for random stuff. The only time for
| me it's not an improvement is for reddit where it is a huge
| annoyance.
| pembrook wrote:
| Google could have simply made page weight a more important
| factor in the ranking algorithm if that was their goal.
|
| The minute these publishers weren't getting as much
| search/news traffic anymore, they would have capitulated,
| making their sites run faster immediately, the same way
| they quickly capitulated to AMP.
|
| As proven by AMP, when Google says jump, the entire
| interest responds by saying "How high?"
|
| Can anybody give me a single non-nefarious reason for why
| AMP was necessary instead of simply enforcing page
| weight/loading-speed factors via the algorithm?
| treis wrote:
| Good in theory but liable to be endlessly gamed. Using
| something like Amp is easy to implement even if it's not
| ideal.
| Analemma_ wrote:
| And who, pray tell, serves all those annoying ads and makes
| those ad-heavy sites rank high in searches, thus
| controlling the nudges that push people onto AMP? Are you
| seeing the problem yet?
| treis wrote:
| Usually Google ads aren't that bad. It's the 3rd rate ad
| networks and websites that have the annoying dark
| patterns and crappy performance.
| dna_polymerase wrote:
| > letting tech companies privatize and eat away at the open
| nature of the internet, so now we have to live in tech giant
| fiefdoms where they can determine the very form and content
| of everything displayed on the web because they're the ones
| who control every access point and standard.
|
| Wooow slow down buddy. Nothing like that is hapening. I can
| still hook up my computer to the internet and start serving
| websites right away. Google can't do anything about that.
| Neither can Facebook, or any GAFAM.
|
| However Google did change your behavior is entirely on you.
| You can live without them just fine. Until that is changed I
| can't see any need for regulation.
| ethbr0 wrote:
| "Google just blocked my site as deceptive"
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26326528
| abraae wrote:
| The site in that article was set up to allow random
| malware to be uploaded and effectively hosted. So not a
| good example.
| [deleted]
| georgeecollins wrote:
| But also a few times on this site in the past few years when
| someone complained about AMP, technical people on HN would
| also say that Google was doing the right thing to make mobile
| pages more responsive.
|
| Google was saying they were trying to solve a real problem,
| and it isn't easy (for me at least) to have known their true
| goals. Now if you read the the Texas anti trust suit -- and I
| recommend it to anyone who is interested-- it seems pretty
| clear that their motive for AMP was to improve their ad
| revenue.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _their motive for AMP was to improve their ad revenue_
|
| It can be both. AMP legitimately sped up a lot of crappy
| news sites. That put pressure on non-AMP sites to get their
| game together. It was probably a net positive at first. But
| then Google abused their position.
| Angostura wrote:
| All they needed to do, in my opinion was to let it be
| known that sites that were optimised for mobile
| accessibility and fast loading would prioritised in
| mobile search result placement, above slow, inaccessible
| sites.
| ethbr0 wrote:
| > _But then Google abused their position_
|
| Absolute market dominance corrupts absolutely. Even, and
| in spite of, efforts to the contrary from within the
| company.
| vxNsr wrote:
| Well, let me break it down for you: The US political landscape
| looks like this:
|
| Republicans want deregulation everywhere, no matter the cost,
| the second you talk about limiting big business or monopoly
| busting they run away.
|
| Democrats on the other hand rely heavily on favors from the
| tech establishment to keep their agendas front and center and
| hide any downsides, this means letting BigTech(tm) have free
| reign.
|
| Thus both parties are incentivized to look the other way. Only
| recently did the Republicans wake up to TOO BIG = bad; but
| their solutions are all terrible and thankfully were never
| entertained by any meaningful majority. Meanwhile the democrats
| are working very hard to cement the current big tech
| conglomerates into having control and power so you can expect
| more of the same.
| setpatchaddress wrote:
| The parties have changed since whenever you last read up on
| this (four years ago? ten years ago?).
|
| Gop politicians (for Republicans call themselves this) don't
| care about deregulation anymore -- they just want to funnel
| money and power to the wealthy.
|
| Dem politicians now seem very excited about breaking up
| Facebook and Google.
|
| Both parties want to hurt Google and Facebook for perceived
| political bias. Gop politicians want this because Google and
| Facebook sometimes allow some left-of-center voices to
| occasionally penetrate their newsfeeds. Dem politicians want
| this because Facebook has been a vector for QAnon and other
| wingnut-terrorist radicalization.
| whatshisface wrote:
| That's a great summary after you symmetrize it by summing
| it with its transpose.
| mistersquid wrote:
| Democrats have been very vocal and, more recently, active
| about bringing antitrust actions against big tech for the
| last 4 years now, with Senator Elizabeth Warren campaigning
| for President on a tech trust-busting platform.
|
| Rather than link to those campaign promises, I'll point out
| that the current legislative strategy for restoring
| competition to the tech sector is being spearheaded by
| Democratic Representative David Cicilline. [0]
|
| Additionally, Professor Tim Wu's appointment to the National
| Economic Council by the Biden administration speaks volumes
| of the urgency for antitrust action on the part of the
| Democratic party. [1]
|
| [0] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-big-tech-
| antitrust/u-...
|
| [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/05/technology/tim-wu-
| white-h...
| LegitShady wrote:
| I'm inclined to think democrats talking about anti trust in
| relation to tech firms are more looking for influence than
| honest-to-god anti trust.
|
| It's much easier to get companies to move your way if you
| threaten them with broad investigations into their
| activities. They're much more likely to behave the way you
| want later.
|
| That doesn't change the real danger these companies
| represent to the continued freedoms and viability of
| society, given the current social media feedback loop and
| the death of journalism as a result of tech.
|
| We're in uncharted territory.
| mistersquid wrote:
| > It's much easier to get companies to move your way if
| you threaten them with broad investigations into their
| activities.
|
| It's also much easier to enforce antitrust by initiating
| antitrust legislation.
|
| Currently, the strategy of broad investigations is
| yielding to multiple focused pieces of legislation
| spearheaded by David Cicilline (link in GP).
| IncRnd wrote:
| > Rather than link to those campaign promises, I'll point
| out that the current legislative strategy for restoring
| competition to the tech sector is being spearheaded by
| Democratic Representative David Cicilline.
|
| I wouldn't say Cicilline is spearheading anything. However,
| it's good that after 26 years as a politician, Cicilline
| now "is _preparing_ to come out with 10 or more pieces of
| legislation targeting Big Tech companies " [0]
|
| But, don't forget that Ciccilline went to prison after he
| "pleaded guilty to conspiracy, obstruction of justice and
| making false statements for his role in the courthouse
| corruption scheme" [1]
|
| Regarding fiscal competance, Fitch Ratings also downgraded
| Providence's ratings, and Cicilline was accused of "hiding
| the scope of the city's fiscal woes through 'illusory
| revenues, borrowing and other tricks.'"
|
| [0] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-big-tech-
| antitrust/u-...
|
| [1]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Cicilline#Controversies
| api wrote:
| > the second you talk about limiting big business or monopoly
| busting they run away
|
| _Unless_ big business is de-platforming right-wing content,
| in which case this principle is instantly forgotten and we
| need regulation and monopolies need to be broken up...
| [deleted]
| hctaw wrote:
| Which regulators? Which laws or policies have they broken?
|
| The failure here is more that regulation covering this stuff is
| very unclear. Is it anti-trust? Telecommunications?
|
| And if it is antitrust, what is anti competitive? How is the
| consumer harmed? How are others being prevented from competing?
|
| Basically you can't just say "Google bad" here. Regulators need
| to go from that to "Google bad, and illegal." That last thing
| is not clear right now
| Black101 wrote:
| The reddit bot that automatically de-amp website URLs is pretty
| nice... https://ns.reddit.com/user/AmputatorBot
| cambalache wrote:
| Hey but google put a rainbow on its webpage and a BLM banner so
| that is the only important thing
| adrr wrote:
| Is AMP really that bad? There isn't annoying modals that take
| over the screen. No ads inject themselves into my scroll.
| Videos players that work and don't have two minutes of prerolls
| and the main content just buffers forever. I just hate it
| messes up the url.
| Pxtl wrote:
| AMP _is_ an annoying modal that takes over your screen.
| skeletal88 wrote:
| Yes, I fucking hate it. Every time I search for something on
| mobile and the result is something from reddit I only get to
| see only a part of the first post and some of the comments,
| to read more I have to click "read more". Why would this ever
| be helpful to anyone? What purpose does it serve other than
| waste the users time and make him do more clicks?
|
| Also - has anyone ever been happy to land on an AMP page, and
| think, "wow, this is really useful, I'm glad I'm on this
| weird page, instead of the original one" ?
| kybernetikos wrote:
| I block a bunch of 3rd party javascript trackers and the
| like. AMP degrades in a horrible way if you do this - it
| seems to give me multiple seconds of a completely white page,
| presumably for no reason other than to punish me. I closed so
| many amp pages assuming they were broken before realising
| that they do appear if you leave them long enough.
| paxys wrote:
| Other than the usual reasons why everyone hates it, the most
| frustrating for me is that sharing articles with others used
| to be super simple (copy address from browser, paste into
| messaging app), but now I have to hunt for the actual non-AMP
| URL which is impossible to find.
| flying_sheep wrote:
| I was thinking why the f*k all the websites were turning into
| g*gle.com domain? That breaks all the link sharing. I thought if
| this is the problem of the mobile Safari. Turns out it is G*gle's
| evil plan to dominate all the WWW traffics :-/
| ec109685 wrote:
| Safari will auto-expand the AMP link to the deep link, so at
| least within iOS's default browser and using its share sheet,
| AMP doesn't break link sharing.
| ec109685 wrote:
| This is disingenuous given that's not how Google AMP works when
| viewing an article on its search results:
|
| > _Both sites are measurably worse on their AMP versions. The
| amount of data transferred is higher, the script execution is
| worse, and the page takes longer to load. So much for the promise
| of speed and a better user experience._
|
| AMP pages render instantly because Google is able to pre-cache
| their data. So you're not paying the same price at click as you
| do when you go to a non-amp page. Yes, AMP doesn't make sense as
| a tech to render your main site when a user directly visits it,
| but for embedding your content into another's experience, it does
| allow for _very_ fast load times.
| osrec wrote:
| I sure hope it is the end of AMP (even though it was launched by
| a close friend of mine at Google).
|
| Quite honestly, the concept never really made any sense to me,
| and often the load speeds were just as poor as the original
| website itself.
|
| One thing that really bugged me was how disorientating it was for
| the user; on some AMP pages, you literally could not tell if you
| were on a legitimate website or some spoofed version. The AMP bar
| at the top was about as trashy a UI design as I've seen since
| 1997. And, God help you if you wanted to share the link - it was
| hard to know if the AMP link would be "persistent" or "sticky"
| enough to share, or whether you should go to the actual
| underlying web page (which the AMP bar did a great job of hiding)
| and share that.
|
| But what is most annoying of all is that smart people at Google
| were kidding themselves that their botched up implementation of
| AMP was a great thing to have launched upon the world. It really
| was not. I bet it didn't really do much for their bottom line
| either.
| godelmachine wrote:
| Just in case someone is excitedly expecting that AMP is going
| away (like I did :p), sorry beforehand to burst your bubble -
|
| >> _Part of the Google update is that all pages with high Page
| Experience scores are eligible to be in the featured top news
| carousel. This effectively means that publishers will no longer
| be forced to use AMP and can instead provide fast, rich
| experiences on their own domains_
| tyingq wrote:
| It may end up being the same thing. Publishers reluctantly used
| AMP because of the carousel placement. Depending on the effort
| to revert, removing the incentive may effectively kill AMP.
| underwater wrote:
| Publishers absolutely want to take people to their main site,
| not the AMP facsimile. If Google actually do what they say
| here, this will kill AMP.
| georgeecollins wrote:
| This is disturbing. I think it is up to people like the ones
| who read hacker news to at least raise awareness of the issue
| with ordinary people. A lot of people are uncomfortable with
| the monopoly power of Google but aren't sure exactly what is
| wrong with it.
| pembrook wrote:
| Occam's Razor is extremely useful here. But not in the way you
| might think.
|
| The most efficient and least expensive solution for Google, if
| they actually cared about making the web faster, would have been
| to simply enforce page-weight rules via the search algorithm.
|
| The fact that they _didn 't do that,_ tells us that Google is
| either:
|
| A) Stupid and inefficient, because creating AMP cost 100X more
| than a simple search algorithm change
|
| Or
|
| B) Trying to achieve something else with AMP, something that is
| worth the extra cost, and that they weren't telling us about.
|
| After seeing the Texas lawsuit against them, it's pretty clear to
| my eyes that the answer is B.
| valine wrote:
| Google AMP breaks full screen safari and reader mode on iPhone.
| I've gotten so fed up with it that I've set google.com to always
| load as desktop. Search results are smaller and harder to read,
| but it's well worth the tradeoffs IMO.
| jibbers wrote:
| I'll be that person. Have you tried DuckDuckGo? No AMP and
| their "bangs" are great.
| valine wrote:
| Yeah I try every ddg every six months or so. Their results
| are getting better but I still find myself using g! enough
| that it's annoying.
| ncann wrote:
| As a user, I don't have any complaint for news sites using AMP.
| But Reddit links using AMP is a crime against humanity, and I
| search Reddit threads using Google a lot.
| ehsankia wrote:
| Absolutely, and honestly I blame reddit much more than AMP
| there. AMP was clearly not created for the sort of dynamic page
| like reddit. Honestly, looking at reddit's mobile page in
| general, it's clear that they try to make it as awful of an
| experience as possible to get people onto the app, which is
| common with some sites.
| AnssiH wrote:
| I guess you probably do not read article comments?
|
| For some reason I almost always want to read them, and most of
| the time the AMP version does not have them, and most of the
| time there is no way to get to the non-AMP version.
|
| Example from my Google feed: https://www-tomshardware-
| com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.toms...
| luxuryballs wrote:
| Amp sucks and IMO is a broken concept counter to the way the
| internet is supposed to work... case in point the only thing I
| use it for is to link Epoch Times articles since it bypasses the
| required login prompt.
| tamrix wrote:
| I mean, at least make this opt-in if you want the Amp experience.
| Forcing this on users should be a crime.
| api wrote:
| AMP has been #1 on my list of web/Internet things that I hoped
| would fail since it emerged. It was a transparent attempt to
| start walled-gardening the web.
| bla3 wrote:
| AMP exists not because it's impossible to build fast web sites
| without it, but because it's possible to build slow web sites
| without it. Which means most big sites not using AMP are slow
| because most places don't have direct incentives for keeping
| their stuff fast. Against all odds, AMP convinced these sites to
| build an alternative experience that's reasonably fast. It's good
| that AMP is no longer required to get good rankings for fast
| pages. That was always a silly requirement. But from a user's
| point of view, I'm grateful for AMP, despite that being an
| unpopular opinion around here.
| paxys wrote:
| Sites didn't get fast "against all odds" but rather due to a
| very clear incentive from Google - adopt AMP and you will be
| ranked higher.
|
| Instead of going that route, Google could have said on day 1
| that they would just rank based on the site's experience score
| (as they are doing now), and the end result would be the exact
| same.
| acdha wrote:
| This is a valid point but ask whether Google couldn't have had
| the same effect by telling everyone that page speed / bloat was
| a strong ranking factor. AMP forced a large amount of
| unreliable, slow JavaScript into the critical path so the
| benefits could have gone even further.
| ip26 wrote:
| They had already done that, perhaps for years. I don't know
| why it didn't work - perhaps there was a slowness oligopoly,
| where everyone was slow and no one was strongly incentivized
| to speed up.
| Angostura wrote:
| If that were the case, there wouldn't have been incentives
| for them to implement AMP
| acdha wrote:
| They had it as a minor signal. They could have made it
| stronger. Posit, for example, that they'd said the carousel
| was only for sites which rendered in one second on mobile -
| do you think AMP would really have done more than that?
| [deleted]
| marricks wrote:
| Google could just penalize websites for being JS heavy or
| loading slow but instead they built a walled garden they have
| control over.
|
| I get some happiness about it but hopefully we can have nice
| things without such massive sacrifices.
| underwater wrote:
| Google have now said they'll allow any web page in the carousel
| if it's fast. Which means companies have the same incentives to
| invest in performance, with the added benefit that the faster
| experience is on their main web site, not the AMP sidecar.
|
| From a pure performance perspective AMP had one secret weapon:
| Google could safetly prerender content before the user clicked
| on it. This was offset by the fact that AMP made lots of other
| page speed optimisations impossible.
| tjoff wrote:
| If that was their goal they could just have banned javascript.
| Much easier and faster.
|
| Would also improve the web dramatically.
| wmf wrote:
| The slippery slope of bloat is back. "We're currently at a
| score of 87 so surely a few more ad dollars are worth losing a
| few points." (one year passes) "Adding just one more chumbox
| will only drop us from 70 to 66 so we really can't turn it
| down."
| random5634 wrote:
| Same - despite all the hate I liked AMP.
|
| Hackers / developers seem to insist on the non-AMP sites to
| bloat sites to absolute trash and back. If I saw the amp logo,
| I knew that was the one to click.
|
| Abusing users with bloat is supposedly some great freedom worth
| fighting for, but AMP forcing these developers into a much
| smaller box that they can't screw with users as much on I just
| loved AMP.
|
| I think a lot of the HN hate comes because AMP I think
| prohibits random third party javascript ad libraries. So
| obviously it hits folks where it hurts, but the web is much
| nicer to browse without all the junk.
| Shared404 wrote:
| > Abusing users with bloat is supposedly some great freedom
| worth fighting for
|
| The thing people were offended by wasn't the lack of bloat,
| it was the fact that it was ceding even more control to
| Google.
| [deleted]
| tootie wrote:
| I wonder if there's space for CDNs to fill in some of that use
| case without the monopolism. Having a slimmed down experience
| geared directly for people landing from search makes a lot of
| sense.
| Shared404 wrote:
| Even better, just go straight to the slimmed down experience,
| regardless of where the visitor is coming from.
| BrianOnHN wrote:
| Blah blah "AMP is bad."
|
| I could agree with the performance sentiment if it were directed
| at the real issue:
|
| One-click-and-you-now-have-amp solutions, which is like 99% of
| AMP pages using WordPress.
| yrrr wrote:
| Google sequestering the URL is bad.
| BrianOnHN wrote:
| Exactly, Google <-- is bad.
|
| I don't see how this gets mixed up with AMP.
| ravenstine wrote:
| They're not separable, though. AMP entirely depends on the
| existence of Google in order to see any benefit from it,
| even without cacheing layer. Having worked for a few
| companies that wanted to implement AMP, including one which
| was a media firm, they both wanted AMP for the SEO
| benefits. The "carousel" was like where they wanted to be,
| and they didn't give a flying shit about improving page
| performance; if they did, I would have explained to them
| that we already could have good performance _now_ if they
| stopped asking us to overload their pages with tracking
| scripts, ads, and other useless crap, and allowed engineers
| the time to address performance issues.
|
| Without Google, AMP alone doesn't have the speed or the
| technical advantage to make it worth it. Google's neatest
| trick is their attempt at framing AMP as something akin to
| an open-source project that has nothing to do with them
| when, in reality, it has everything to do with them.
|
| P.S. AMP _does_ give engineers an out by allowing them to
| build pages from scratch without the cruft imposed upon the
| OG pages by their employers, but this could be easily
| avoided by product owners making better(and rather obvious)
| decisions rather than always making the more exciting ones
| that cause a lot of dilly dallying and technical debt.
| Still, at the end of the day, on its own is just busy-work.
| GuB-42 wrote:
| > Having worked for a few companies that wanted to
| implement AMP, including one which was a media firm, they
| both wanted AMP for the SEO benefits. The "carousel" was
| like where they wanted to be, and they didn't give a
| flying shit about improving page performance;
|
| And that's exactly why I can't hate AMP. Publishers don't
| give a fuck about performance, and user experience in
| general as long as they get clicks that can be monetized.
| They don't want to keep users for their quality content,
| they want to game search engine results and trap users
| when they get in.
|
| Things like AMP seems to be the only way to make
| publishers care. Seen the other way, Google have seen the
| mess, and took advantage of it and made AMP, which both
| addresses the problem and get them a comfortable
| position. If sites were fast the problem wouldn't be
| there in the first place, and Google would have had to
| find something else for their monopoly.
|
| And sure, what you said in your PS is true.
| Unfortunately, that's not how things are. I don't know
| why, greed maybe? But if it is the case, it is the stupid
| kind of greed, because now, publishers are struggling and
| Google is making shittons of money.
| fiddlerwoaroof wrote:
| The advantage of AMP is precisely this: when an executive
| wants to put fifty tracking scripts of various sorts on
| an AMP page, the developers can say "this is impossible,
| Google doesn't allow this". When it's on your site's own
| page, the developer doesn't have this leverage.
| meibo wrote:
| > publishers will no longer be forced to use AMP and can instead
| provide fast, rich experiences on their own domains.
|
| Great joke. Visit any non-amp news site and tell me that one
| again.
|
| The only, major benefit AMP brought to the internet is that it
| was legitimately light and fast.
| Angostura wrote:
| news.bbc.co.uk
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-03-23 23:00 UTC)