Can you elaborate? The argument is that AMP is part of the open web, that it’s an open standard everyone can use and lots of people do use. That doesn’t exonerate Google for (allegedly) using anticompetitive practices to push and shape the standard, but I can’t see a critique of AMP as a project that wouldn’t apply equally well to WHATWG’s management of HTML. I think this is something where a lot of people just don’t know how the sausage is made.

The fact that google runs a cache is part of AMP, and open for criticism.

The fact that google does not let you disable AMP from your browsing experience is part of AMP, and open for criticism.

The fact that google will prefer AMP over non-AMP links even if this means looking for a newly launch site with dynamic content (that can't be amp'ed) will get buried by articles about that site because they have AMP, is part of AMP, and open for criticism.

ie: AMP the """standard""" may be good, but everything google did with AMP is fucking horrible, and utterly and irreparably stains AMP, if only for enabling these things.

And the fact that google benefits from AMP, AND also started AMP and shaped AMP, just kinda nails the argument that you can't seperate out AMP from how google uses AMP.

Im referring to AMP the caching service run by Google. That is very much a walled garden.

If they turned it off tomorrow the standard would still exist.