Earlier quoted context omitted.
This doesn't follow. How does an open standard that, essentially, allows for CDNs to be more secure, let Google dictate how the internet operates?
Alright, an open-standard that allows Google to create a walled garden. But when has google ever been for an "open" internet? Never because an open internet doesn't make money, but then again that has never been Google's philosophy. AMP does dictate the internet in a way that forces the user to see and do how Google wants you to see and do. If Google was for open standards, I should have the ability to turn off googl…
This doesn't make sense.
> AMP does dictate the internet in a way that forces the user to see and do how Google wants you to see and do.
This doesn't follow. AMP doesn't force the user to do anything. It encourages website creators to do specific things when building certain kinds of sites. And we're not even talking about AMP, but about signed exchanges.
> If Google was for open standards, I should have the ability to turn off google amp. No?
This doesn't follow. There are lots of open standards that you can't turn off (or that you suffer significant issues if you turn off). HTTPS, for example. Not to mention HTTP.
> If I host my own email server on my own IP range with in my colocation and send to GMAIL, I am instantly put in spam. Is that not dictating that my email to my mother is spam?
What does this have to do with AMP or Signed Exchanges? But also no. It's dictating that random email servers are almost always spam. This is both true and good for the vast majority of Gmail users, who don't have masochistic techy family members who want to host their own email server for indie-dev cred. There's nothing about this that isn't for open standards. It still uses all open standards, and is solved using open standards (DKIM, etc.). If you want to host your own email server, you need to be willing to put in the work. Unfortunately, it's a lot of work. That's not Google's fault, its spammers'.
> Amp dictates the web and will as they see fit.
In what way. You still haven't explained like, what the point is. What is the intent here? So far your post is just a bunch of scary sounding buzzwords, but you have yet to make a cohesive argument about what Google is doing and why this is a bad thing.
So here's some specific questions for you to answer: What is the walled garden you're accusing Google of creating? And again: how does an open standard allow Google to create it? And how does a walled garden let them "dictate how the internet operates?
When I pushed you to answer that question, you pivoted to entirely ignoring your previous argument and instead claimed that there were other situations where Google wasn't for open standards. That may be true, or not, but it's entirely irrelevant to your accusation that in this case, the open standard will let Google "dictate how the internet operates".
You need to draw the line from AMP to "dictate how the internet operates", and so far you've avoided actually making that connection when pressed.