<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>myth_buster</author><text>&amp;gt; given that content creators intentionally volunteer their content to AMP&lt;p&gt;This is certainly not true. The reason no many content creators and publishers moved to AMP is to not hurt their SEO.
If you check most of the AMP articles targeted to publishers, it&amp;#x27;s addressed as get on the AMP wagon now or else you are doomed when Google starts ranking AMP pages higher.</text><parent_chain><item><author>endorphone</author><text>Do you think there would be an uproar? Apple introduced reading mode, built-in content&amp;#x2F;ad blocking, etc. AMP actually fits in the profile of Apple -- prioritizing a fast, usable solution.&lt;p&gt;This author notes that they &amp;quot;feel bad&amp;quot; about consuming AMP content. Which is extremely weird given that content creators intentionally volunteer their content to AMP (aside from this user who got famous claiming that Google was stealing their content because they had enabled a Wordpress plug-in haphazardly).&lt;p&gt;If Google blacklisted non-AMP content, or even just deranked  it, sure there&amp;#x27;s an argument, but as of yet this notion that it&amp;#x27;s some content theft is quite strange.&lt;p&gt;Google&amp;#x27;s intention with AMP is obvious, and obviously not anti-web: Facebook is becoming a primary medium where users are accessing a lot of content. I personally read all news via Facebook now, where they&amp;#x27;ve integrated it heavily with a built-in browser and now instant articles (Facebook&amp;#x27;s AMP). Compared to this, the traditional web is just an obnoxious mess, not because of the web but because of the abuse that AMP restricts.</text></item><item><author>epistasis</author><text>I&amp;#x27;m trying to imagine the uproar if Apple had done AMP instead of Google.  Somehow AMP has some staunch defenders, but everything, and I mean &lt;i&gt;everything&lt;/i&gt; about how it&amp;#x27;s been approached has felt very anti-web and pro-Google. The overall concept may be sound, but the implementation, and the inability to escape it, has significantly hurt my opinion of Google. In fact, I no longer use Google&amp;#x27;s search because of it.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Please Make Google AMP Optional</title><url>https://www.alexkras.com/please-make-google-amp-optional/</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>jeffbax</author><text>I don&amp;#x27;t think its comparable to Apple. Apple is trying to make the user experience of existing content better (where it is located)&lt;p&gt;Google is taking the content and serving it themselves.&lt;p&gt;The problem is sites being slow in the first place, but Apple isn&amp;#x27;t commandeering the content itself like Google is by creating a mode where the browser can enhance legibility of any article.</text><parent_chain><item><author>endorphone</author><text>Do you think there would be an uproar? Apple introduced reading mode, built-in content&amp;#x2F;ad blocking, etc. AMP actually fits in the profile of Apple -- prioritizing a fast, usable solution.&lt;p&gt;This author notes that they &amp;quot;feel bad&amp;quot; about consuming AMP content. Which is extremely weird given that content creators intentionally volunteer their content to AMP (aside from this user who got famous claiming that Google was stealing their content because they had enabled a Wordpress plug-in haphazardly).&lt;p&gt;If Google blacklisted non-AMP content, or even just deranked  it, sure there&amp;#x27;s an argument, but as of yet this notion that it&amp;#x27;s some content theft is quite strange.&lt;p&gt;Google&amp;#x27;s intention with AMP is obvious, and obviously not anti-web: Facebook is becoming a primary medium where users are accessing a lot of content. I personally read all news via Facebook now, where they&amp;#x27;ve integrated it heavily with a built-in browser and now instant articles (Facebook&amp;#x27;s AMP). Compared to this, the traditional web is just an obnoxious mess, not because of the web but because of the abuse that AMP restricts.</text></item><item><author>epistasis</author><text>I&amp;#x27;m trying to imagine the uproar if Apple had done AMP instead of Google.  Somehow AMP has some staunch defenders, but everything, and I mean &lt;i&gt;everything&lt;/i&gt; about how it&amp;#x27;s been approached has felt very anti-web and pro-Google. The overall concept may be sound, but the implementation, and the inability to escape it, has significantly hurt my opinion of Google. In fact, I no longer use Google&amp;#x27;s search because of it.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Please Make Google AMP Optional</title><url>https://www.alexkras.com/please-make-google-amp-optional/</url></story>