The minute these publishers weren't getting as much search/news traffic anymore, they would have capitulated, making their sites run faster immediately, the same way they quickly capitulated to AMP.
As proven by AMP, when Google says jump, the entire interest responds by saying "How high?"
Can anybody give me a single non-nefarious reason for why AMP was necessary instead of simply enforcing page weight/loading-speed factors via the algorithm?
Your marketing department wants another tracking script? no can do. Your exec wants a javascript "click the monkey" promo? not on the AMP site. The UX folks want parallax webGL spinning logos? Sorry AMP doesn't allow it.
It puts people who were previously not in a position where they could push back against decisions which effect load speed in a position where they can push back.
The tech team could have just as easily have said, "sorry, that would put us over our X ms page speed limit."
The fact Google spent 100X the resources of a simple algorithm update by creating AMP, tells us there were other motives behind this.
They actually did this a few years ago: https://developers.google.com/search/blog/2018/01/using-page...