Don't think for a moment AMP is a technical solution to counter sites being bloated - it's a strategical solution for Google to lead audiences into their walled

Don't think for a moment AMP is a technical solution to counter sites being bloated - it's a strategical solution for Google to lead audiences into their walled garden, like they always do eg. Usenet/DejaNews and XMPP/Hangouts. The bloat is something that Google themselves are responsible for, by the incentives and economies of scale they set upon the web (after they hijacked HTML and attempting to transform it into a shitty app platform for like 15 years now). News publishers should be aware that giving Google exclusive access to your content via AMP is very shortsighted and in fact just demonstrating basic failure to comprehend what should be their very core competence - winning audiences for your site and independent, sustainable journalism in this era of the attention economy. All the more since Google's reign as a privileged portal to the extant web is coming to an end (as demonstrated by this desperate AMP initiative itself). If you as a journalist cannot make it in a free and undiscriminating medium, but rather give in to a walled garden like CompuServe and AOL used to be in the 1990s, then this doesn't inspire confidence in the journalistic quality of your content, and I don't want to read it (I could as well go elsewhere, link to other publishers, and I do). The same could be said for news providers in bed with Facebook. For example, German public broadcasters (themselves on a roll to expand their web offerings to a degree that private publishers went to court over this) have absolutely no reason to be on Fb, and lead their audience into privacy minefields, yet on their site, the same publishers make grand essays on privacy and fake news.