[ctack]

I find the idea of the largest search engine repackaging others content without even hitting the content owner's site to be frankly rude. These sites pander to be ranked and get hits and then Google turns around and pulls this.

[Lazare]

AMP is an opt-in thing that publishers have to implement. If you go out of your way to get google to display your AMP content, it's hardly "rude", nor is google "pulling something" on the sites.

A valid critique is that publishers might feel forced to offer AMP whether they want to or not in order to still get traffic and pagerank, but even then, it's not like they're being tricked. It's still opt in.

[1123581321]

The sites are implementing AMP. Google gets the HTML and assets for its CDN cache by crawling the sites. Publishers are aware of this.