Given that you are the tech lead on AMP at Google, maybe you can clarify a bit on this...but why the decision to group this interaction under Sharing? It seems like people are trying to just visit the original site, not share it, and one of the big criticisms has been that this is buried. Presumably putting it under Sharing is also a bit confusing because to many, "sharing" implies sending content to someone which describes a very different interaction than opening the original page.

Is it because "Sharing" in this case us meant to imply pushing the content to another medium (such as an external browser) vs. just the implied meaning of "sharing with another person?"

I'd love any context you can share from internal discussions around how prominent to make that functionality. I think it is hard to deny that Google benefits from it being harder to find, which is where the criticism from the parent is likely coming from.

Only a tiny percentage of users wants to use the "click through to original" feature. Sharing is a major use case that strongly benefits publisher. In the end one has to make trade offs what to make prominent in a UI.

As a user who frequently wants to change the rendering, I don't think I would have ever thought to look under share. I associate the 'share' section with tracking code and buttons for social networks.

And yet, it's what a search engine is supposed to do: link you to someone else's site.