> Looking at how the current mobile web it is necessary.
I don't see why. We've had mobile pages that worked fine for a long time, they were just normal web-pages, without a lot of cruft.
> This gives an incentive for the web developers to change.
Better ranking practices, would do the same thing.
> And it gives an open option to facebook closed instant articles.
Possibly. I've never used those so I can't say.
> We would still be stuck with ie and its unique html if not for google building chrome and forcing web developers to follow the standards more instead of staying with ie.
uh... did you forget that whole Firefox thing? Google came in on the tail end of that. And they did it, by using standards, not coming up with their own standards that nobody asked for.
> If not for what google has done over the last decade you would be looking at a very different web.
And it would probably be better. Sure, searching through it was harder, but it was way less money-driven, and much more hackable/useful.
> I might disagree with google on many of its privacy practices etc but can't disregard the fact that many of advancement on the web and internet in general in the last decade have happened because of google forcing people to change or showing how it could be done better.
I don't disagree. I'm grateful for Google doing that. But it doesn't mean they get a free pass to make stupid decisions from here on out. This is still the wrong solution to the problem, no matter who is pushing it.