There are only 6 labels to choose from. They actually couldn't have picked a different label without making up a new one, or without making their choice of label even more misleading than it already is.
Let's try a different approach. How about this: I've carefully read over both the spec itself and everything Apple and Mozilla have to say on the matter (that I was able to find anyway), and have come to an informed conclusion: both Apple and Mozilla are wrong. (That's actually a rather poor, oversimplified summary of my position. But no moreso than "harmful" is a poor, oversimplified summary of Mozilla's position.)
You are making an argument from authority. I consider myself sufficiently well informed on this particular topic to be making arguments based on facts and reason. I don't find you repeatedly citing a one-word summary of Mozilla's position on the matter (which is actually quite nuanced, and not at all able to be summed up by a single word) to be particularly convincing.
Let's try this...It isn't me anyone needs to convince. An appeal to authority is appropriate when said authorities control the browsers needed for the proposal to succeed.
One of those 6 labels is "non-harmful". It's it isn't harmful, that seems right. Here's the legend:
"Mozilla does not see this specification as harmful, but is not convinced that it is a good approach or worth working on."
Mozilla didn't choose that label.
My view is that the proposal was driven by a desire to make AMP less icky. It looks like it could have broader benefit if the concerns Mozilla outlined are addressed. I am skeptical Google will do that.
As for your characterization of yourself as "well informed" and me as, er, something else...really? Was that necessary?
Let's try a different approach. How about this: I've carefully read over both the spec itself and everything Apple and Mozilla have to say on the matter (that I was able to find anyway), and have come to an informed conclusion: both Apple and Mozilla are wrong. (That's actually a rather poor, oversimplified summary of my position. But no moreso than "harmful" is a poor, oversimplified summary of Mozilla's position.)
You are making an argument from authority. I consider myself sufficiently well informed on this particular topic to be making arguments based on facts and reason. I don't find you repeatedly citing a one-word summary of Mozilla's position on the matter (which is actually quite nuanced, and not at all able to be summed up by a single word) to be particularly convincing.