They're determined to make AMP the de-facto way of publishing content and this feels like just another way of making AMP more appealing.
He Google gains by promoting AMP, and double-gains by incentivizing websites to optimize themselves to Chrome instead of to its competitors.
> Second, the internet is supposed to be a place of equality, where kids, experimental artists and businesses all get the same respect and treatment
I think it's okay not to respect poorly written websites as long as it's the people who can judege. But when big corpos are putting regulations in place on what it means to have a good website – I agree with your point and someday it might impossible to run your own website like it's now with mail server.
You kind of did as soon as you started using chrome.
That ship sailed long ago, through Google Search. When Google Search changes its ranking algorithm, the web moves. They've done this a lot: your site ranks better if it has a better mobile experience, if it's faster, if it's machine readable, if it's in a particular language, if it's served using HTTPS, etc.
Generally, the argument is that Google has been given that mandate by the user: they're prioritising websites that are better for the user, and hence people choose to use Google. Chrome is just another tool in Google's toolbox.
Whether you agree with it is up to you, but it's been happening for a while nonetheless.
Sure but do they need to understands them to make this effective? It's effectiveness will come from people being able to say "this website is slow" instead of having to argue whether it's from their computer, their internet, etc... and in the end just being ignored. Not all of them will care to know, but enough will and be able to use that information to go much further with it.
> I see it, as someone else put here, a "badge of shame".
You can begin by saying that a sign in the middle of the ocean is absurd because it's obvious, yet it's a badge of shame. Everyone know it's slow but once it's only a badge of shame once it's been shown?... That's a bit incoherent.
> First, what is fast depends on how the browser parses websites, so one website can be faster in Firefox but slower in Chrome, and still get a "badge of shame".
Does it matter? If it's slow on Chrome, it's slow on Chrome... If someone would tell you it's currently slow on Chrome you would just answer: "Well it's fast on Firefox so change your browser"? I hope not...
This badge is just a formal proof that it's slow on Chrome.
I'd like to see things move more in this direction. Websites that ask for notification permissions or interrupt me to tell me to sign up for their newsletter are frustrating and awful and I'd love for the systems I use to nudge me away from them.
I leave and never come back to cumbersome websites. Even my grandpa does that, though he just doesn't like the bad experience, he knows nothing about scripts.
If this step Google treats the internet like its one of its products, and Google must ensure good user experience for its products. But no, it's not, it belongs to everyone.
In their defense, this is what product owners want. If it didn't work into the numbers, they would stop doing it.
This "badge of shame" is a way to makes it works into the numbers... Your voice is sadly nearly worthless to your product owner (that's so sad that I write this...) but a bunch of complains from people, that may just do it.
So if I'm in a site that is loading slow, Chrome will tell me "this site is loading slow". which is almost like putting a sign in the middle of the ocean, "you in the ocean". Like, a person should notice it on its own, right?
Ok, I understand they mean to tell me that it's slow loading due to the fault of the site, and not due to (let's say) my bad internet or device. But I think that most people don't understand those kind of technicalities, and don't really care to know them. I see it, as someone else put here, a "badge of shame".
Moreover, it's kind of regulating the internet. No one gave Google the mandate to regulate the internet.
There are two other problems with this "speed above everything else" approach. First, what is fast depends on how the browser parses websites, so one website can be faster in Firefox but slower in Chrome, and still get a "badge of shame". There's no standard here afaik (perhaps I'm wrong).
Second, the internet is supposed to be a place of equality, where kids, experimental artists and businesses all get the same respect and treatment. But businesses websites are obviously going to be faster, they got the professional technical stuff to ensure that, making the other second-rate internet citizens.