Yeah, I don't see this either: amp as implemented is a mitm attack that delivers content in an opaque manner, as it's not a proxy at the http(s)/socks level - h

Yeah, I don't see this either: amp as implemented is a mitm attack that delivers content in an opaque manner, as it's not a proxy at the http(s)/socks level - how would the user agent know that "amp.google.com/url=actual.url.example.com" should be rewritten, but "random.example.com/article?someParam=old.url.example.com&article=42" should not be rewritten? Now Google has forever(?) broken links in search results, in order to count click-throughs - so I suppose all browsers should special case that too... I can't for the life of me figure out why they married an ok html/css/js subset (amp pages) with an absurdly invasive proxy technology. I hear they say "speed", and "75%" - but if that's going from 130ms to 50ms complete page render does it really matter?