This is a lie. The source page does not have any access to referral data. Without things like JS supporting it, it does not and cannot know that a user has clicked on any of its links.

> if the content is served via SE it reduces the number of other sites that get tracking data

This is also a lie. It does not _reduce_ the number of sites that gets tracking data. Rather it takes the ability to control who gets to track away from a publisher (who you'd reasonably expect to be able to track your visits to _their own site!_ ), and puts it into the hands of an aggregator (like Google, who you would _not_ expect to be able to track views on third party content).

In this sense it is exactly like AMP, it is a shift of who holds power over data. Users do not gain anything (privacy could be argued to be no worse, but it is certainly no better than before) but publishers have everything to lose.

AMP was never a battle between users (readers) and Google. It was a battle between _content publishers_ and Google. Nothing has changed when it comes to SE. It's the same old formula just in a new bottle.

Unless SE ultimately allows specification of a list of allowed distributors as part of the bundle, framing SE as "just like using a CDN" and that "Google/aggregating site doesn't benefit more from this" is at best a bit ignorant about the power struggles between publishers and aggregators.