Note, that at the beginning of the developer preview 2 years ago, AMP did do something like this, but it was quickly fixed.
The fact that users like AMP is not material - the problems that it causes are not ones they are going to see in the short term.
We should have an HTMLite of the sort like AMP. Like how Google Gears became a variety of accepted web standards, it should build into something rather than the nonsensical claim that it does nothing.
But in practice, the way AMP is used has fundamental problems. Like the fact that content is hosted by a third party, or that links are broken, or that scrolling is wrecked. I like the speed of AMP; the implementation is catastrophic and I wish dearly that I could disable its appearance in Google search results.
You can if you use https://encrypted.google.com
Edit:
Now that I think about it, Twitter does try to use AMP as HTML light, since they don't use the cache.
Yet I think AMP is does not make a great HTML light, likely because it has to support the cache use case.
Secondly, I think the biggest strawman is this notion that it's AMP vs some conceptual "open web". That open web you like has much more formidable competitors and was the reason AMP appeared.
I don't think AMP would have a snowflakes chance in hell to succeed on it's own merits. It's success now is due to SERP-based strongarming by Google.
Given how simple it is load quickly, I think its inexplicable that AMP is so complex and its development so closed.
The only possible benefit I can see for Twitter to link to AMP is that their testing proves users prefer AMP pages, meaning a better user experience is result when "development is clearly steered by platform companies". When you say AMP is biased in the platform companies favour, what you really mean is it is biased in the user's favour.
As we've seen with the state of the non-amp mobile web, it's not simple to load quickly. Maybe it's simple to implement if that is your goal, but convincing all the involved stakeholders that it's a worthwhile goal is hard, and so the mobile web is slow as hell. The open web had their chance to make fast sites, and failed. So now an industry-led carrot-and-stick style approach is being used, and it's actually working. pages load fast now. And the HN Community, who is responsible for making a lot of those slow sites ("oh! let's load another three analytics platforms, it's only a couple megs") is angry.
Also, if the webmaster wants, they can simply add `rel=noreferrer` to the script tags. This is still considered valid by the AMP Validator.
Some ways of implementing fast (mobile) loading have the potential to be quite disruptive to Google's business model; AMP is a way to ensure that doesn't happen. Note that AMP is open-ish now, not when it was initially developed. The general model is thus a fait-accompli.
AMP is harmless enough nobody is likely to get all to worked up about it (despite these comments, neither am I!), but it does fit the mold of classic monopoly abuse rather neatly: using dominance in one sector to influence others in your favor.
Twitter, I can't see benefits, other than what you mention i.e. tests show users preferring it. My premise is that there is a large enough group of people who would prefer to opt out. I have no idea how large or small this group is.
- TFA
It was actually a pro AMP article that was posted here and my response to it that "triggered" me to bitch again.
https://www.alexkras.com/some-thoughts-on-amp-in-conde-nast/
Your original argument was that you purposefully enabled and published AMP on your site and then complained that Google `stole' your content, which normally would elicit groans and criticism on a technology site, but it played to the crowd. I'd keep playing that tune as long as people will listen.
I should have RTFM and never enabled it, but it's not how it played out.
Scrolling speed is one problem. The lack of scrolling to the top by tapping the scroll bar is another. Is that fixed too?
Nope. (I forgot to test that.)
Regular web pages is the format that I personally prefer to interact with.
Edit: If you can't see the progression, look up this history of froogle. For starters, publishers are accepting a banner that takes up the most valuable space and features an [X] button that goes straight to Google. Worse if your page is in the carousel. And, it gets worse from here. They will tweak the UI over time...it's not your site. It's theirs. Eventually, this turns into an AOLesque private interweb.
It rolls back a decade of responsive innovation.