So the pro-Google argument I'm hearing is something like: "Google is making a better experience for users and no one is forcing you to use Google." If you thin

So the pro-Google argument I'm hearing is something like: "Google is making a better experience for users and no one is forcing you to use Google." If you think Google is in the right here you have to say Microsoft was totally right to push IE and make it the default on Windows machines and make certain pages only load in IE and all the rest. After all, you could simply go install Firefox or not view pages on Microsoft.com. The problem is that Google is using it's market advantage to do things that takes control from websites and affects their economics directly. Google using it's influence to dictate best practices is nothing new (and has always been worrisome), but AMP directly affects websites owner's control of their content and they are continuing down a path that weaken the economics of site owners, especially smaller sites. You can say it's great to strip out bloated stuff from pages, but if Google strips more value from websites and gives them nothing in return, it just leads to sites closing down or producing less content because Google is absorbing their value. And also don't forget good content that doesn't care about AMP or isn't part of an economic machine that jumps when Google says jump. That content just gets further pushed down the SERPs for big entities that follow Google's rules, regardless of it the content is better or if it has any "bloat" to strip in the first place. How exactly is that good for users?