I don't think the rewritten title is faithful to the link.
I understand why the original title of "Google AMP Can Go To Hell" was rewritten, as it is unnecessarily inflammatory and clickbaity, but
"Google wants websites to adopt AMP as the default for building webpages"
really isn't the point of the article, at all. It is necessary background for the article, but the point of the article as I read it is that there are specific implications of the AMP effort that are nefarious, insidious, and dangerous to the open web. A rough outline would be
* Background: Google wants websites to adopt AMP as the default for building webpages
* Contention 1: Adopting AMP is technically difficult
* Contention 2: Adopting AMP will harm non-google web properties in the future
* Call to action: there are several things you can do in order to "...fight back. You could tell them to stuff it, and find ways to undermine their dominance. Use a different search engine, and convince your friends and family to do the same. Write to your elected officials and ask them to investigate Google’s monopoly. Stop using the Chrome browser. Ditch your Android phone. Turn off Google’s tracking of your every move. And, for goodness sake, disable AMP on your website."
I don't think any reader would think the Background statement provides the best summary of the posts thesis; it's clearly the call to action. By changing it to the background statement, it changes the "meaning" of the article completely.
So "Google AMP Can Go To Hell" is much better than the revised title, and if it's unacceptable, then "Fight back against Google AMP" is both faithful and uses the author's own terminology.
I think in this instance that the editorial control exerted over the post title could have been better considered (notwithstanding the same change made in the prior submission; the same mistakes were made then, as well)
The main thing we're trying for in title changes is to use representative language from the article itself. Since it does use the phrase "fight back", we can go with your suggestion.
I understand why the original title of "Google AMP Can Go To Hell" was rewritten, as it is unnecessarily inflammatory and clickbaity, but
"Google wants websites to adopt AMP as the default for building webpages"
really isn't the point of the article, at all. It is necessary background for the article, but the point of the article as I read it is that there are specific implications of the AMP effort that are nefarious, insidious, and dangerous to the open web. A rough outline would be
* Background: Google wants websites to adopt AMP as the default for building webpages
* Contention 1: Adopting AMP is technically difficult
* Contention 2: Adopting AMP will harm non-google web properties in the future
* Call to action: there are several things you can do in order to "...fight back. You could tell them to stuff it, and find ways to undermine their dominance. Use a different search engine, and convince your friends and family to do the same. Write to your elected officials and ask them to investigate Google’s monopoly. Stop using the Chrome browser. Ditch your Android phone. Turn off Google’s tracking of your every move. And, for goodness sake, disable AMP on your website."
I don't think any reader would think the Background statement provides the best summary of the posts thesis; it's clearly the call to action. By changing it to the background statement, it changes the "meaning" of the article completely.
So "Google AMP Can Go To Hell" is much better than the revised title, and if it's unacceptable, then "Fight back against Google AMP" is both faithful and uses the author's own terminology.
I think in this instance that the editorial control exerted over the post title could have been better considered (notwithstanding the same change made in the prior submission; the same mistakes were made then, as well)