Well, it's not your job to agree with that or not though. He should be free to do as he pleases (so, the freedom to spew gobs of JS etc. should be unarguable) and you should be free to not visit his page.
The average person can’t tell in advance — or, often, after the event — that this will happen, and when it does happen it is bad for them.
Aside from the security issues, the current status quo shortens battery life, wastes bandwidth (which is still precious and limited on mobile, even if not on landlines), and is generally done for the benefit of everyone except the user.
If they can tell in advance, they can tell it after, and punish the page by not visiting it.
If they can't tell it after the event, then it shouldn't matter.
If they didn’t kill you by cancer and heart disease, but instead one in 1.4 million exploded and blew your head off, you’d know. Everyone would. The most explody brand would be punished.
The constant bit-by-bit risk of 1.4 cigarettes per micromort makes it ignorable, even though the risk is identical.
The only website I punish for their JavaScript content at the moment is forbes.com, and that’s because they have a combination of an adblock-blocker and (whenever I tried turning it off to read a story someone linked me to) ads which redirect me to scams.
That’s dynamite.
On my laptop I disable JavaScript everywhere unless it’s important to enable. I would do the same on my phone except the UI makes switching it in and off on a per-site basis much more annoying. The result is my phone battery, which can trivially record GPS traces all day while also managing day-to-day use of augmented reality translation all with negligible battery use, runs out of battery in a few hours of browsing.
That’s cigarettes.
Which site(s) killed the battery?
Ah yes, the famous strategy for solving all problems: Hiding them, because if no one notices them anymore, they are not problems anymore.
If something doesn't impact someone in a way that they can ever tell, it is not a problem to them.
You mean restrict myself to the remaining two websites that don't do this?
Also, it's not like the website obesity crisis is a new concept: http://idlewords.com/talks/website_obesity.htm
No, it shouldn't. Google should reflect an accurate ranking of pages based on content relevance (as best as possible technically), not a curated list.
The evidence that visitors find bloated pages an issue is slowly growing, from Amazon quantising the financial loss of slower loading pages [1], to more recently, Life Hacks taking advantage of GDPR-triggered quicker-loading less-bloated European-versions of news sites [2].
I guess the question worth asking is if a non-AMP page is objectively more-performant than an AMP version, does Google prefer the publisher to keep the slower AMP version?
In a sense AMP is user-focused, validating Jakob Nielsen's prediction of the end of Web Design, because "people spend more time on other sites" [3].
[1] https://www.fastcompany.com/1825005/how-one-second-could-cos... [2] https://lifehacker.com/to-make-websites-load-faster-browse-t... [3] https://www.nngroup.com/articles/end-of-web-design/
Too much to be left to some private interests to play with at their own opaque will (and sell to the highest bidder).