How do you suggest publishers who are dependent on traffic from Google cope with AMP in the short-term? It seems like there is no way to compete with AMP-enabled content on Google ranking except by adopting AMP.
Therein lies the problem, Google owns 80% of the market. Google is a de-facto monopoly. They can force you to act against your long term interests for a short term gain.
I personally find the gain suspicious, it's already possible to make fast pages.
Soon, we'll all merely be Google content providers.
Stop using amp and find other ways to optimize and minifity their websites for mobile? Foundation has the ability to include only the components you want if you build it using SASS and by including/minifiying the individual Javascript files during your build process.
The more I look at AMP the more I absolutely hate it. This is just another thing to make me not want to use it.
If Google points to a site, they should serve your site. If they're serving from cache, put in a DMCA and tell them hands off your content.
I don't think if you're running a business there's any way to avoid optimizing for Google in the short-term. You simply have to do it, if you want to be seen. Not optimizing for Google won't hurt Google, it'll just hurt you. Because Google can always just promote someone else.
But you should also support antitrust legislation and judicial action against Google. Don't vote for candidates next month receiving large donations from Google (now referred to as Alphabet[1] on most donor lists). The long game is requiring open oversight of Google's search ranking methodologies and forbidding them from modifying them to benefit their own products and services.
As an outsider observing the US election the statement of yours "Don't vote for candidates next month receiving large donations from Google" strikes me as ridiculous.
Don't get me wrong, your logic is correct. But, in order for politicians to play the game they need large donors like Google. So, if they don't take money from Google they'll just take it from someone else with an agenda. The real solution is to vote for candidates pushing for campaign finance reform (reading Lawrence Lessig may be insightful)
I just want to point out that it is illegal in the U.S. for federal candidates to take money from organizations, such as corporations like Alphabet, Inc.
When you see campaign contributions listed "from" Alphabet, that money is actually all coming from individuals.
Employees of Alphabet who give more than $200 are required to list their employer on the donation form. The campaigns then submit that data to the FEC, which makes it public, which is where OpenSecrets gets it. So even if the Google janitor gives $250 to Clinton, OpenSecrets will list that as coming "from" Alphabet.
OpenSecrets also shows money that went to candidates from political action committees (PACs). But any money that passes through a PAC to a candidate must originate from an individual as well. The corporation can only pay administrative fees, like providing an office and Internet connection.
The reason that donors are required to list their employer on the donation form is because of how much influence that employer has on the employee/donor.
You may note that I said to avoid voting for candidates with a LARGE amount of contribution from Google. Because this isn't about $250, but, for instance, about the $58,000 Googlers have given to Ro Khanna, which pretty much ensures Ro would never vote against Google's interests if elected.
> But, in order for politicians to play the game they need large donors like Google. So, if they don't take money from Google they'll just take it from someone else with an agenda.
This is funny considering you think "donations" from Google don't have an agenda.
Lets call it what they are without double speak - a fucking bribe.
Realistically, you will never get a majority of US legislators to agree that giving US legislators money is a bad idea. Unsurprisingly, when Congress moves to increase the salary of Congress, the bill tends to pass with flying colors. ;)
Therefore, your best bet is to get regulations against Google by electing people paid by someone else, then later get regulations against that someone else by electing people paid by someone entirely different. It's a juggling act of corruption!
> Realistically, you will never get a majority of US legislators to agree that giving US legislators money is a bad idea.
While the electorate is bickering over distractions like this cycle you are correct. However, limiting special interest influence strikes me as a non-partisan issue, so if the citizens spoke up I think they'd have sufficient influence.. But, then maybe I'm being an idealist. Regardless, your short term solution works.
The problem is, it's a non-partisan issue in that almost all our representatives, regardless of political party, are totally comfortable with it. ;) And the reason we're uncomfortable with special interest influence is... that it absolutely freaking works. The power money has on election results is so strong, that almost anyone who isn't accepting it probably isn't getting elected. So the likelihood of gaining a majority of Congresspeople who would move against it is pretty much impossible.
