I’m not saying it is likely, but you really can’t see a path?

A company that clearly aspires to control the communications system that global society increasingly relies on for everything, that spends massive amounts to influence governments, that controls the visibility and economic destiny of the journalistic organizations that might hold them accountable... could decide to, ya know, do a lot of bad stuff?

> I’m not saying it is likely, but you really can’t see a path?

For all X, there is a path from X to great harm. Likeliness is critically important in evaluating whether X is still a good thing or not. I grant that your scenario is possible, but I consider it very unlikely.

> I don't foresee any likely path by which encouraging the adoption of a particular open source publishing technology is going to do serious damage to future generations.

Wasn't that the entire premise of embrace, extend, extinguish? Sure, adopting open source technology is good, but it seems to me that Google's in the "extend" phase rather than being actually altruistic.

You mean like HTML/Javascript/CSS?

You can't see any path upon which allowing a massive advertising corporation to gain majority control of and lead in the AOLification of the web/internet could be damaging to future generations?

Telling Google is open-source is like telling MacDonald's is healthy because it has a slice of tomato and salad.

Android is not entirely open-source. Chrome browser is not entirely open-source. Google Web Apps are not open source. Google Search is not open source.

Parent said AMP is open-source.

https://www.ampproject.org/

Do you disagree?