> Happy to have a technical discussion, but not sure you are really interested.
Criticism of AMP certainly includes technical aspects, but most objections I encounter are ethical rather than technical.
Did Google explicitly consider ethical considerations when creating and launching AMP? If so, what did this process look like, and where could we find out more?
If not, isn't it time we expected ethical review to be part of significant changes in web infrastructure, the same way we would with significant changes in physical infrastructure?
Funny how literaly tens of behavioural trackers on sites that follow you everywhere, abuse holes in browser sandboxes to steal private data and try to install malware did not bring quarter of vitrol here on HN. More, bunch of people defended that as "we need to make profit".
Now that someone got rid of that it's suddenly an "ethical issue"?!
We have somewhat different expectations of Google than malware sites, because we expect it to act as a good net citizen, and a thoughtful custodian of its enormous power to shape the future of our culture.
The risk critics are concerned about here is a future where the internet no longer "belongs" to the people on it anymore, and despite the malicious nature of the abuses you named, they hardly represented that class of threat.
Criticism of AMP certainly includes technical aspects, but most objections I encounter are ethical rather than technical.
Did Google explicitly consider ethical considerations when creating and launching AMP? If so, what did this process look like, and where could we find out more?
If not, isn't it time we expected ethical review to be part of significant changes in web infrastructure, the same way we would with significant changes in physical infrastructure?