> If Google grabs significant parts of news articles that users don't need to visit the sites, then Google should pay them. But Google is not doing that.
So what is AMP then?
So what is AMP then?
https://developers.google.com/search/docs/guides/about-amp
It's pretty blatantly the case that AMP provides a SEO boost. What hosting service could possibly compete with the speed at which Google can retrieve content from their _own_ servers?
That's the whole point of this legislation: to give news orgs means to stop Google from twisting their arm in this way.
The news organizations themselves gains a lot from google crawling and indexing their sites (which do cost google money) and now this legislation would also require google to pay them for displaying the title/subtitle of their articles. In what world is that fair or balancing out the relationship?
This is not what the legislation is about. This is about Google's practice of excerpting the actual content of the articles and putting it at the top of the page. Google is algorithmically republishing copyrighted content from these news orgs and hoping that surrounding it in quotes is enough to protect them.
Problem solved.
That seems to say that is isn't blatantly the case that AMP provides an SEO boost. But that speed does. And there are many CDNs that are on the same edge. AMP isn't about to beat Akamai, for example.