I feel like this constant anti-AMP rhetoric has extraordinarily little to do with users, and primarily are web developers who don't like that AMP rolls back a lot of abuses. The argument isn't just "I don't like AMP", it's "No one should like AMP!" and it grows tiresome.
AMP is such an egregious attack on open standards it shouldn't be possible. The fact that it is shows the system is broken.<p>The whole point of having a system is to prevent short term interests from trumping long term health. Tomorrow any monopolist can offer a short term fix for a fraction with the public lapping it up only to run down competitors and capture the market. This is well known monopolist behavior with strong systemic safeguards which curiously are not working.<p>People keep on complaining about heavy web pages but what happened to faith in markets and letting users decide?
Surely if a website is too heavy people will automatically seek alternatives. So there is a contradiction here, does the market work or does it encourage a race to the bottom? Perhaps without Google's monopolist intervention a more open less self interested solution could have emerged.<p>Google is becoming a monster with an obsessive insatiable appetite for information and knowledge. A push back is long overdue or we will pay with private self serving entities controlling access to our own information and knowledge.
Put this on the list of dozens of settings Twitter should be offering users, like opting out of seeing likes from people you follow, or permanently turning off "in case you missed it".
The website owner has added markup to a document that states:<p>"Hey useragent, if you understand this markup, please send mobile users to this other URL that I have provided."<p>Twitter then respects the website owner's markup request.<p>If the markup was "here's a mobile optimized page", we wouldn't get this kind of strong reaction in HN. If the markup was "here's a the language X variant of the document", we wouldn't get this kind of reaction in HN.
If Twitter is redirecting to the original URL, what's the problem? It muddies the claim of those that oppose AMP so fervently to mix AMP the framework with the use that Google makes of AMP. The publisher has decided to use this technology to make their mobile page. It's perfectly valid (and well engineered) HTML and javascript. Asking for a non AMP version of a page is like asking for the non React page or the non Bootstrap page.
Twitter for iOS has an option to open all links in reader mode. It's awesome!<p><a href="https://medium.com/@pixeldetective/open-twitter-links-directly-in-safaris-reader-mode-on-ios-58cc4eeaa14e" rel="nofollow">https://medium.com/@pixeldetective/open-twitter-links-direct...</a>
I make a somewhat popular Chrome extension [1] designed to aid website readability. I think this article is spot-on, and I'm going to look into adding a feature to my Chrome extension that does precisely this article suggests (changes "amp=1" to "amp=0" on twitter links).<p>Ping me if you want to try this feature in beta: nick@beelinereader.com.<p>1: <a href="https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/beeline-reader/ifjafammaookpiajfbedmacfldaiamgg?hl=en" rel="nofollow">https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/beeline-reader/ifj...</a>
OP does not explain WHY he wants AMP to be optional. In the other article the author says "I don’t know why I do it, but for some reason it just doesn’t feel “right” to me to consume the content through the AMP. It feels slightly off, and I want the real deal even if it takes a few seconds extra to load."<p>That is a weak argument to persuade a major corporation to change the way something behaves or give the option to change the way something behaves.<p>OP should put himself in the shoes of Twitter: "What do I get by making AMP optional?"<p>...now you know what their response will be.<p>Edit: fair rebuttal, thanks for the response