3 ms·

And if it's pro-AMP then it's good for you. As a user, I like AMP. I don't work for Google and have zero investment in whether AMP succeeds or fails. But I'm c

And if it's pro-AMP then it's good for you. As a user, I like AMP. I don't work for Google and have zero investment in whether AMP succeeds or fails. But I'm capable of rationally discussing it without ridiculous FUD or pejorative noise, which so many of you aren't. If you feel that's good then I really don't know what arguments would make you see Of course. Allude to the greater knowledge that the ignorant fool just doesn't get. 2 for 2 now.

jacquesm 9y ago
> But I'm capable of rationally discussing it without ridiculous FUD or pejorative noise, which so many of you aren't. Well, since you are commenting across many threads in the same vein I don't see what gives you the moral high ground on this. You as a user like AMP, but what's good for you as a user may very well be detrimental to the web and your personal temporary inconvenience need not have taken a backseat to 'the greater good' if Google had simply increased the penalty for web bloat. That's what I'm getting at when I say that AMP is solving the wrong problem, or if it is solving the right problem that it is solving it in the wrong way. This is just Google replacing one kind of bloat with another and we need neither. It is also a fantastic example of how a near monopoly position can be abused to extend your grip on other markets. Whether you work for Google or not doesn't interest me one bit, what I wonder about is if you do not remember the past where we had all these systems that wouldn't talk to each other and where a few very large players dictated what the rest of us should do. Google is outright coercing content owners to support AMP 'or else' and that's just not the web that I want to see. Giving Google a free pass here means that other players will take it as a sign that the time is ripe for the next land-grab and then we will all - including you - suffer. My web properties will never support AMP, they're not bloated to begin with and whatever penalties Google assigns to them are proof positive that this never was about bloat.

jacquesm 9y ago

> But I'm capable of rationally discussing it without ridiculous FUD or pejorative noise, which so many of you aren't. Well, since you are commenting across many threads in the same vein I don't see what gives you the moral high ground on this. You as a user like AMP, but what's good for you as a user may very well be detrimental to the web and your personal temporary inconvenience need not have taken a backseat to 'the greater good' if Google had simply increased the penalty for web bloat. That's what I'm getting at when I say that AMP is solving the wrong problem, or if it is solving the right problem that it is solving it in the wrong way. This is just Google replacing one kind of bloat with another and we need neither. It is also a fantastic example of how a near monopoly position can be abused to extend your grip on other markets. Whether you work for Google or not doesn't interest me one bit, what I wonder about is if you do not remember the past where we had all these systems that wouldn't talk to each other and where a few very large players dictated what the rest of us should do. Google is outright coercing content owners to support AMP 'or else' and that's just not the web that I want to see. Giving Google a free pass here means that other players will take it as a sign that the time is ripe for the next land-grab and then we will all - including you - suffer. My web properties will never support AMP, they're not bloated to begin with and whatever penalties Google assigns to them are proof positive that this never was about bloat.