I used to think of Google as the nemesis of the open web, out of an instinct against monopolies and for the little guy. Now I'm thinking Facebook and others are

I used to think of Google as the nemesis of the open web, out of an instinct against monopolies and for the little guy. Now I'm thinking Facebook and others are much worse monopolies (though I always wonder who's using Facebook? Certainly not anyone I know below the age of 30). Fb hasn't a reciprocal relationship with the web in the sense that it takes content from the web but doesn't give back. Best thing about Fb is that it's a good filter for people I choose not to care about, was what I was thinking. But now I believe the kind of communication going on in Fb is extremely detrimental, dangerous even, to an open society/democracy, because people with opposing views don't talk to each other but rather prefer to talk themselves into rage with like-minded people, and get fueled with fake news. Needless to say, worse things happen in autocratic states. It's only in Google's best interest the web doesn't become a scripted ghost town anymore than it already is. Therefore I don't understand what they want to accomplish with AMP. I used to think that p2p is the future of the web, but eg. zeronet/ipfs don't help one bit with the above problems. Also, I don't want to cede the web; it was created by a whole generation of liberal-minded people. Google should leverage their power for something big to counter web balkanization and echo chambers.