[judge2020]

> OK, but the only thing I want out of AMP is for it to not exist. Is there any chance that I can get involved in AMP's open governance with a "stop existing" goal?

You can choose not to use it. It's just like when you find a project on Git(hub|lab|etc) and it uses a language, tool, or package manager you've never seen before. You either try to work with it or look at other projects.

If you don't want to deal with AMP, you can click the link icon at the top of the page, then click the link so that you actually end up on the webpage you wanted to visit. You can't force everyone to adopt the "amp shouldn't exist" model just as much as you can't force "electron shouldn't exist and everyone should write native apps" on others.

[geofft]

1. I do in fact click the link icon. Half the time it takes me to an AMP version of the website (not the google.com/amp version, but example.com/amp/ or something) instead of the full version.

2. Why is it being framed as me forcing everyone to adopt the "AMP shouldn't exist" model, instead of Google forcing everyone to adopt the "AMP should exist" model?

3. You're talking about me as a consumer. As a publisher, I don't want to use AMP, but I want the favorable SERP placement that comes with using AMP. I think that my website satisfies the actual goal behind AMP, of loading fast. But that isn't enough, and I have to use AMP - and force my visitors to either use AMP or click through AMP (making it slower, and defeating the point of everything). As a publisher I'm actually pretty excited about the webpackage stuff (and it'll be straightforward since I'm using a static site generator), but it's still not the same as being able to run a real website that actually loads quickly.

4. None of this answers my question, which is not "How do I, personally, avoid using AMP" but "Does the AMP open governance model, in which people can allegedly become involved in setting the direction of AMP, allow people the opportunity to make AMP cease to exist"?

5. Google's monopoly power in search results and vertical integration makes everything more complicated. Electron does not have monopoly power on native apps, and nobody is giving an artificial boost to native apps that are written in Electron. Any advantage to Electron is due to Electron's own technical merits.

My bet is that the majority of people on the AMP advisory committee are primarily there because they need to avoid unfavorable placement on the Google SERP and so they're forced to implement AMP and want to make sure they can still render half-decent web pages using AMP, not because they inherently like AMP.

[Mirioron]

The number one reason I constantly use desktop mode is so that I don't get AMP pages. I've even switched search engines to get rid of them, but still have to sometimes use Google search because it finds what I'm looking for.

>You can't force everyone to adopt the "amp shouldn't exist" model just as much as you can't force "electron shouldn't exist and everyone should write native apps" on others.

Considering that the reason AMP is even used is because Google puts AMP results higher in search results you could argue that Google might be leveraging their market position into using a technology under their control.

[ttctciyf]

> If you don't want to deal with AMP, you can click the link icon at the top of the page, then click the link [...]

Apart from that that is "dealing with AMP," why is it so hard for Google to offer a "no amp in search results" setting? It's not like there is no case or desire for it.

Until they take that simple step, I see no reason to assume that pushing AMP isn't on an ethical par with distributing crapware. Google should know better.