I don't think most of the people angry about signed exchanges necessarily want a distributed web (everyone hosts), they want the old decentralized model (many servers with different content). They want Google to stop telling them how to format their website, and they want Google to stop rehosting their website as a condition of search-engine access. That last one in particular isn't a centralization issue as much as it is a copyright concern. If people are angry about technology that makes it easier for Google to proxy their content, they sure as shit aren't going to want technology that lets randos do it too.

Not to mention, the decentralized web also means more privacy concerns. In the old model, the only entity that knows you downloaded a particular file is the server you talk to. With AMP, Google is now involved with that data flow. This is a third reason why people hate AMP, but it could be worse. Google is at least still a moderately trustworthy entity for a lot of people. However, what about Archive.org? What about Amazon, Facebook, ByteDance, or Brave Software? Each entity has far different trust implications compared to Google. You may trust them more or less. Just signing the web content only validates that the content itself hasn't been tampered with, not that the place you got it from is going to have your privacy interests in mind.

All of which can be done without AMP, hiding the url, or forcing companies to use it or lose their SEO placements.

It's the SUM of the pieces that point to Google's endgame, not the individual pieces themselves.

I have an idea.

Move forward with signed exchanges, and then prohibit them from being used to obscure the content source (more specifically, require the 3rd party to reveal themselves)

I mean I don't disagree with you that I should be able to look and see what entity actually served me the content in the same way I can see who signed the sites SSL cert but I'm still 100% in favor of having browsers present display the bundle's URL in the browser because that's the site your viewing.

A site that uses Cloudflare as a CDN isn't cloudflare.com/site/nyt.com. The whole point of these things is that if you have some vested interest in being a CDN for chunks of the web for your users you don't have to set up a partnership with them and proxy their site or have their certs you just download the bundle and go.

I detest AMP, but I'm very much looking forward to signed exchanges.

It's the combo of SXG and AMP, and not what that combo can do today, but what it could do.

> I really don't get why people think that signed exchanges are this super nefarious plot to destroy the open web

My biggest concern is that the request will go to a google-owned server, where google can fully track me, and my browser would be lying to me about being on a non-google estate I might assume be free from Google’s tracking.

Site-owners will now also be forced to buy into Google Analytics since they have no requests in their own server-logs to analyse.

It’s a power-grab. And obviously google is doing this to increase their ability to do full internet-wide tracking.

> My biggest concern is that the request will go to a google-owned server, where google can fully track me.

I'm not exactly sure what the fear here is. You're only getting to the page by clicking a link in Google Search and then your browser fetches a bundle from Google's servers.

In your ideal world you would click a link in Google Search, telling Google what you're looking at, and then connect to the site via Cloudflare, and the source site's servers telling them too?

The flip side to these is that your browser can actually act as your agent with this. If you find yourself a nice privacy-respecting CDN then your browser can try to pull from there when you click any link and you now have way less exposure.