-
Yes, yes, yes. "AMP keeps users within Google’s domain and diverts traffic away from other websites for the benefit of Google. At a scale of billions of users, this has the effect of further reinforcing Google’s dominance of the Web." ampletter.org mathewi/951093696107134977Permalink On twitter.com
♻️ 3 Retweets
❤️ 8 Favorites
Mood +5 🙂
-
I too have co-signed. As it stands, Google's use of AMP to de-brand publications is dangerous and bad for readers and media companies. Google's push to deform SERPs with AMP is domineering and monopolistic. For AMP to continue this way is dangerous. Rich_Harris/951090284468801536Permalink On twitter.com
❤️ 1 Favorite
Mood -7 🙁
-
Google's implementation of AMP is bad for media literacy: Chronotope/816318639582441473On twitter.com
❤️ 1 Favorite
Mood -3 🙁
-
Its implementation is counter to the open web and Google's pressure with it runs against the principles the Internet was founded on. Chronotope/651763107908481025Permalink On twitter.com
Mood -1 🙁
-
It creates a dangerous and anti-competitive reliance on Google Chronotope/816321483429609475Permalink On twitter.com
Mood -2 🙁
-
It is not a legitimate strategy in its current form to solve the actual problems that cause the web to be slow Chronotope/924008311590137861Permalink On twitter.com
Mood -1 🙁
-
And publishers are trapped by Google's dominance. DCNorg/816314000317288449Permalink On twitter.com
Mood -2 🙁
-
Google's current wielding of AMP is a blunt instrument to avoid: fixing their own problems; negotiating with advertisers and agencies; and healing an ecosystem they continue to harm. JackWellborn/951097617668345857Permalink On twitter.com
Mood -5 🙁
-
If you would like to cosign github.com/amp-letter/amp-letter.github.io but don't know how to do a PR, drop me a line and I'll help.Permalink On twitter.com
Mood +3 🙂