AMP is just an ordinary page on google domain. If you're going to hard-code some anti-Google behaviour in Firefox, it means to start a war against Google. Not the wisest decision when Google is the main revenue source for Firefox AFAIK.
Given Google's reach, not the wisest decision for any browser maker.
Google being the main revenue source for Firefox is often cited and is true, but if you look at Brave, its competition, what they do is to block a publisher's ads, replacing them with their own, being essentially racketeering and I'm surprised how they weren't declared illegal already.
Fact of the matter is, if people don't pay money for browser licenses, and they don't, and if ads don't fund those browsers, and they currently do, then alternatives to Chrome cannot exist, if not funded by another mega corporation that can burn money just so Google can't be the only player, like what Apple does.
---
But back to decision making — we are talking about AMP pages being served by searching on Google.com, because that's the major source of these links.
Given the search engine is Google's property and not some public utility, they can destroy any browser maker if they wanted to.
Speaking of which, if you're so bothered with Google.com serving AMP pages, well, why not choose an alternative instead?
Brave just has adblock by default with an opt-in system for ads based on notifications. It isn't replacing the ads on the page. Not sure how you see that as racketeering, it's a completely different system.
But it does replace the ads on the page, because those ads they serve are related to the pages you visit and that the system is "opt-in" is irrelevant, because that's their business model.
It's racketeering because they piggyback on publishers for serving their ads contextually, while not allowing publishers to run their own ads, forcing publishers to join if they want any revenue from Brave users. Brave wants to be a gate keeper, coercing publishers in the process.
Again, I don't see how this isn't illegal. It's one thing to be a non-profit browser extension developed by a community on GitHub, it's quite another to do build ad blocking products for profit, because the later is clearly copyright infringement at the very least.
Right, forgot about that. It only makes my point stronger though.
Given Google's reach with their search engine, with YouTube, with Gmail, starting a war with Google would be a death sentence for a browser maker, no matter the supposed source of funding, which is basically ads across the board anyway, an industry also controlled by Google and Facebook.
