There's no coordinated campaign that I know of. The negative reaction that I personally have to AMP is that Google started pushing it as the solution to a problem that they helped create. It's just an attempt to lock publishers into Google's ecosystem.
If Google really cared about fixing the root of the problem, they would put the AMP icon next to sites that are already small and already load fast, and rank them higher, rather than creating a new platform.
I'm not sure I follow how Google helped create a trend of increasingly bloated sites that don't load quickly? The only sites I see loading remotely as quickly as AMP sites are AMP sites. Nothing comes close, nor is it apparent online publishers are even trying to optimize their pages to load quickly. AMP strikes me as a project of desperation by Google, as publishers seem intent to kill their own sites by loading them with as many XML HTTP requests and trackers as possible.
Google has been encouraging those sites to run all that extra cruft by:
A) Not de-ranking sites that are large and slow
B) Asking them to run a bunch of unnecessary trackers (Google Analytics)
I've never used AMP, but it does sound like it is fast, and web-page bloat is indeed a problem. But adding another layer (which also just happens to make you more beholden to Google) isn't the right way to fix that problem, removing the bloated layers is.
If I encourage you to murder someone, and you do it, I'm party to murder. If I don't care about you either way and you murder someone, I'm not party to murder.
The result is the same (you murdered somebody), but it very much matters if and how I was involved.
If Google really cared about fixing the root of the problem, they would put the AMP icon next to sites that are already small and already load fast, and rank them higher, rather than creating a new platform.