3 HN users recommended this commentary2 months2020–2023score 2
Years with an HN recommendation, 2007–2026
Referenced in debates over Chrome hiding URLs as a compelling case for why full URLs are hard even for experts.
Jake Archibald argues that URLs are nearly impossible for humans to interpret, especially for security. He walks through what browsers do about it, including highlighting the registrable domain, and floats a possible better design.
“I think they make a compelling argument for hiding most of the url in part to prevent phishing” (HN, 2020)
A couple of Google Chrome devs talk about the issues surrounding the readability of urls and their security implications and possible solutions in an episode of their podcast[0]. I think they make a compelling argument for hiding most of the url in part to prevent phishing however I do think they should allow this behaviour to be toggled via a flag. [0] [this video]
Chrome devs discuss URL readability and security tradeoffs.
Reading URLs is actually really hard - even for experts. This video covers the problems well: [this video] This is bad for web security, since the registerable domain is the part you have to trust, but it's surprisingly difficult to figure out that part. However I feel a bit uneasy about this since URLs are important and tell you where you are on a website. I prefer Firefox's approach which emphasises the registerable domain in the URL bar and fades out the rest of it, making it easier to spot the important bit. However it's still quite subtle - it could do with being a clearer distinction.
Jake Archibald (a Googler) presents some decent points on this on the HTTP 203 podcast: [this video] I still don't agree with the removal of URLs, but I do still recommend watching the entire video if you want to get more perspective on the issue (beyond just the conspiracy theories about AMP and control).
Jake Archibald's perspective on removing URLs from the address bar.
In this video, a Googler here proposes adding the "ETLD+1" part of the domain name as a "chip" where the extended-validation certificate name used to be. So this link: [link] Would look like this in the browser: jakearchibald.github.io | [link] The proposal appears at 16:45 [this video]
Proposal to show the eTLD+1 as a chip in the address bar.
Yes. Years. I think a URL bar that sticks to the security relevent parts is a good idea. It's hard for even experienced users to figure that stuff out. I tried to explain it here [this video]
Why did Google select someone unknown to announce this? It's also the second time I've noticed Google had someone the UK introduce an unpopular proposal to Chrome. The other one was removing the URL from the address bar (accusing the author of You Don't Know JS of being "Trump-like" for how he disagreed with him in the process). [this video] [link] [link] Is there a special ops team? Of the FAAMGs my favorite is Google, but this makes me reconsider my position.
Video list and Hacker News comment labels from HackerTube (prompted by @karpathy), released under ODC-By 1.0, built on the open-index/hacker-news archive. Hacker News data is provided by Y Combinator; comments remain the work of their authors. Video titles, channel names and thumbnails belong to their creators and are shown via YouTube. HackerTube Watch is an unofficial edition. Data export of 2026-10-31.
Plays via YouTube's privacy-enhanced embed
7 Hacker News comments
From the HN archive; up to 20 kept per video, favoring different commenters. Recommendations first.
Citations, criticism and jokes