Ya, Adsense is HUGE bloat on all the tests I've run on various sites - but baby's gotta eat. Maybe one day they'll find a way to streamline things - it's only been 18 years.

It is about contradictions in the company itself. Adsense is an important source of revenue for Google, and for us as publishers, while on the other hand we are forced to have a fast website from Google while their product is the main cause of slowness.
What is the logic of asking us for perfect Core Web Vitals and still bear the consequences if it is not, while a product from the same company is the main cause of imperfection of Core Web Vitals?

Turn it around and put Google in the spotlight instead of the publisher.

AdSense is one of Google's significant money streams, with AdSense revenue being 15% of the total advertising revenue for Google in Q1 2021. Google knows the saying "Never bite the hand that feeds you". Does any publisher really believe that their sites will be punished by Google for the simple reason that they are using AdSense?

Does any publisher really believe that their sites will be punished by Google for the simple reason that they are using AdSense?

No! Your missing the conspiracy, Google intentionally makes AdSense slow, so that publishers use AMP, and AMP ads payout less, so Google makes more money.

Oh and, it also helps to buy ads with AdWords.

oh and sarcasm...

There's a theory (which i choose to believe) that Google ignores the extra full seconds Adsense adds to the site load when considering ranks.
Because, if it didn't no site using Adsense could rank for anything.

Just wonder .... did any of you test the website without the Adsense code. It only takes 10 seconds to remove this code below and test via google mobile speed:

<script async src="https://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js?client=ca-pub-xxx" crossorigin="anonymous"></script>

I'm interested in your results? Mine are very clear without Adsense on mobile the speed is 97%. With Adsense code 53%

What is the logic of asking us for perfect Core Web Vitals and still bear the consequences if it is not

None of that is true. You are encouraged to provide a good user experience. If yours is relatively poor, you may not rank as well as you otherwise could have. So if you use AdSense and a competing website does not, there's a chance that they may outrank you, but obviously there are hundreds of other ranking factors and everyone should stop seeing page speed or CWV as the be-all and end-all.

If you're using AdSense, or any other ad network that slows your site down, that is your responsibility. The fact that AdSense and Search are from the same company is completely irrelevant.

There's a theory (which i choose to believe) that Google ignores the extra full seconds Adsense adds to the site load when considering ranks.
Because, if it didn't no site using Adsense could rank for anything.

You, too, are exaggerating the effects of page speed on rankings. You're also missing the fact that page speed / CWV data is blind, composed of real-world measurements shared by Chrome users.

They're called Core Web Vitals for a reason. Remind you of anything? [en.wikipedia.org] A consistently high blood pressure reading suggests you may not be very healthy, but whether that's because you're overweight, you smoke, or you keep getting frustrated by badly thought out Google conspiracy theories (guilty), is obviously not part of that measurement.

Using AdSense is a trade-off. You knowingly worsen the user experience to improve your revenue. It's up to you to find a good balance.

If you're using AdSense, or any other ad network that slows your site down, that is your responsibility. The fact that AdSense and Search are from the same company is completely irrelevant.

There is a saying in my country that goes like this 'Kadija te tuzi, kadija ti sudi'. Literally translated it means 'the judge sues you the judge judges you' :)

It is very difficult for me to understand when someone says 'The fact that AdSense and Search are from the same company is completely irrelevant.'
It is very relevant because it is one company - Google that survived once thanks to Adsense. And now the bulk of Google's 162 billion dollar revenue came from its proprietary advertising service, Google Ads.

As if the doctor would advise smoking a young man nicotine because it is sometimes good for mental calming. By the way, that same doctor says also 'these cigarettes are best for you', of which I am the manufacturer and owner.

On the other hand the same doctor says to be careful to stay healthy because too many cigarettes and nicotine kill.

Very hypocritical implementation of things in practice.

It's irrelevant because what difference does it make, in your dealings with either product, that they're from the same company?

The Search department isn't saying AdSense is bad for you, it's saying they're increasingly going to reward good user experiences. Using AdSense doesn't necessarily equate to a bad user experience, but not using AdSense usually does equate to a better user experience, all else being equal, simply because (by necessity) there's a cost involved with using AdSense. The same trade-off applies to Google Fonts, Amazon Ads, YouTube embeds, etc. Whether you use any of those is up to you.

And your use of AdSense isn't binary: you can deploy ads prudently, with respect for the user experience, or greedily to maximize your short-term profits at the cost of the user experience. It's only fair that you are judged accordingly. In other words, don't take yourself out of the equation; you are not a powerless victim, forced to do one thing or another, but the very thing that links the two products together.

There is a saying in my country that goes like this 'Kadija te tuzi, kadija ti sudi'. Literally translated it means 'the judge sues you the judge judges you' :)

This would only apply to Search. If Search, as the "judge", "sues" you for a poor user experience, then yes, Search will also "judge" you for that.

Google doesn't hold you to a higher standard than it does itself. If AdSense could be faster or less intrusive of the user experience, it would be, but there are usually different costs and benefits to weigh up. Requiring ads to be faster likely results in a reduction of the ad pool, resulting in lower fill rates, or lower click-through rates. Usually you end up somewhere in the middle, satisfying as many business interests as you can, and for us publishers, AdSense can very much still be a part of that. Don't overestimate the effects of the page experience update.

Google knows the saying "Never bite the hand that feeds you".

Mostly it just wouldn't make sense to demote pages with ads on them because there's so much good content to be found there. In fact, the ads are often the reason the content can be created in the first place, so ad-free alternatives are scarce. Ads are a necessary evil. The primary goal of Search is to ensure a good searcher experience (so that they'll come back and search some more), and ads often indirectly make that possible.

This is something i always wondered because I'm having the same results from my websites but I don't understand how they're expecting us to pass %80 limit, it's literally impossible with adsense.

It is possible to get more than 80% score I have it. But bad design and slow site pays. High speed sites really do not have good earning.