this post was submitted on 19 Jul 2025
158 points (96.5% liked)

Tech

1570 readers
64 users here now

A community for high quality news and discussion around technological advancements and changes

Things that fit:

Things that don't fit

Community Wiki

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Around the beginning of last year, Matthew Prince started receiving worried calls from the bosses of big media companies. They told Mr Prince, whose firm, Cloudflare, provides security infrastructure to about a fifth of the web, that they faced a grave new online threat. “I said, ‘What, is it the North Koreans?’,” he recalls. “And they said, ‘No. It’s AI’.”

Those executives had spotted the early signs of a trend that has since become clear: artificial intelligence is transforming the way that people navigate the web. As users pose their queries to chatbots rather than conventional search engines, they are given answers, rather than links to follow. The result is that “content” publishers, from news providers and online forums to reference sites such as Wikipedia, are seeing alarming drops in their traffic.

As AI changes how people browse, it is altering the economic bargain at the heart of the internet. Human traffic has long been monetised using online advertising; now that traffic is drying up. Content producers are urgently trying to find new ways to make AI companies pay them for information. If they cannot, the open web may evolve into something very different.

Archive : https://archive.ph/nhrYS

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] SparrowHawk@feddit.it 5 points 1 day ago (2 children)

They just gonna put ads on chatbots

[–] ICastFist@programming.dev 2 points 1 day ago

I thought they were the ads already

[–] meowmeowbeanz@sopuli.xyz 16 points 1 day ago (1 children)

sigh Here we go again with another "the web is dying" piece from the corporate propaganda machine.

Look, I get it - traffic numbers are down, ad revenue is tanking, and the surveillance capitalism model that's been propping up the "free" web is finally showing cracks. But can we please stop pretending this is some unprecedented crisis?

The web has been "dying" since social networks, then mobile apps, now AI chatbots. Each time, the same voices cry about the end times while completely missing the actual structural problems. The issue isn't that AI is "stealing" content - it's that we built an entire internet economy on the absurd premise that eyeballs = money, and now we're shocked when the eyeballs find more efficient ways to get information.

What's really happening here is rent-seeking behavior disguised as innovation protection. These "licensing deals" between News Corp and OpenAI? That's just the old gatekeepers trying to maintain their position in a shifting landscape. Meanwhile, the hundreds of millions of small domains that actually make the web interesting get left out entirely.

The technical solutions are way more promising than the legal theater. Cloudflare's pay-as-you-crawl system? Now that's thinking like an engineer instead of a lawyer. Set proper rate limits, charge for bot access, let humans browse free. Simple.

But here's what The Economist won't tell you: the web isn't dying, it's decentralizing. While everyone's panicking about Google traffic, we've got ActivityPub, IPFS, self-hosted everything. The corporate web might be having an existential crisis, but the actual web - the one built by people who care about information sharing rather than ad impressions - is doing just fine.

Stack Overflow seeing fewer questions because AI answers coding queries? Good. Maybe now we'll get better documentation instead of the same "how do I center a div" asked 50,000 times. Quality over quantity was always the point.

The funniest part is watching Google try to have it both ways - claiming the web is expanding by 45% while simultaneously building AI overviews that eliminate the need to visit those expanding sites. Peak corporate doublethink.

Want to save "the web"? Stop depending on centralized platforms for discovery. Self-host. Use RSS feeds. Support decentralized protocols. The technical infrastructure for a resilient, user-controlled web already exists. We just need to stop pretending that what's good for Google's shareholders is good for the internet.

[–] kassiopaea@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Look, I appreciate your argument and generally agree with it, but it also kinda smells like an AI wrote it. If so, I appreciate the irony. Either way, have an upvote.

[–] DapperPenguin@programming.dev 1 points 16 hours ago

I appreciate reading comments that are well written. If an AI was used to create the argument in its entirety, or edit it, so be it. What matters is content and context. If it's eloquent, without being obnoxiously verbose, that's a bonus. It doesn't feel like a lot of filler bullshit was added.

[–] BlameTheAntifa@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Not AI. Capitalism.

The web was well on its way to the hereafter long before generative AI came along.

[–] kassiopaea@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 day ago

AI is the tool that capitalism needed to actually kill it. Before that, the internet was never on any trajectory into unusability as long as you has money and fortitude to deal with ads and privacy invasions (or an ad blocker).

Now writing absolute garbage is so cheap that the internet is being flooded with it, diluting all the correct and useful information to the point that it can actually be hard to sift through and find it.

[–] Flagg76@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

Terrible, we can't track people with cookies and ads anymore, the internet is about to break!

If this is breaking the internet then please let it be broken.

[–] the_wiz@feddit.org 3 points 1 day ago

Even gopher is still pretty much alive after being pronounced dead for a long, long time... so, I am not worried much

[–] rebelsimile@sh.itjust.works 46 points 3 days ago (8 children)

So, it’s not killing the web, people are still using it, but it’s hurting the companies who relied on business astrology (ie SEO) to be effective.

That’s interesting because I think the SEO’d-to-shit web, where you search and get hundreds of results pointing to the same stupid site, is what “killed the web”. Big shrug.

[–] fckreddit@lemmy.ml 18 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Yeah I agree with that. SEO was the worst thing to happen to internet users, where authentic websites, blogs and forums were buried by slop websites.

[–] DarkDarkHouse@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Using the web before search engines were really a thing was way more wholesome, following interesting links and stumbling upon wonderful sites (and awful ones too of course). It was based on trust in which site was pointing you where.

Then along came Google and others who supplanted those trusted links and now they are reaping the whirlwind. I'm hoping we go back to curating our own strange collections of web gems.

[–] anomnom@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 days ago

Using the web with only hyperlinks and web rings or BBS links was good when it was just a place to waste time or ask and wait for an answer to a specific question, I think it would have stayed mostly that way without good search.

However, one of the most powerful and convenient features of computers is the ability to search for things, and we all wanted to be able to find something we didn’t know or couldn’t remember the location of. You could search bookmarks if you saved it, but half the pages were title “home” or other similarly useless names.

Alta vista was amazing when it first launched, and about a month later was fully of keyword stuffed garbage. We worked around it, but then google came around and fixed it. For a little bit.

There’s going to have to be another search solution, and it’ll have to learn how to ignore LLM slop, but since LLMs are going to also need to ignore their own slop if they want to train any more, it’s going to either solve itself, or we’re at it’s peak now.

Search is actually the thing I’m missing most in Lemmy. I haven’t been able to find posts even if I’ve just viewed them a day before unless I voted or bookmarked it.

[–] funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 10 points 3 days ago

there's AEO (answer engine optimization) now though 🙃

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] Deflated0ne@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

No.

Edit - I mean. We could get rid of all the techbro oligarchs. Break up their companies with antitrust. And heavily regulate AI. But that's about as likely as everyone implicated in the Epstein files giving themselves up to the police.

[–] Alexstarfire@lemmy.world 33 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Capitalism is killing the web. AI is just the latest problem.

[–] ByteJunk@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

As long as net neutrality exists, I don't think capitalism can kill the web.

It can force it to change, evolve, shift. But that is exactly the web's DNA, it has done so ever since the beginning, and that's not a threat.

[–] knightly@pawb.social 5 points 2 days ago

Guess what a court ruled against back in January?

I wrote this comment after only reading the headline. After reading the article, i recognize it doesn't fully fit, but here it goes anyways:


The question is should anything save it?

Probably not. Widespread internet (Facebook, Shitter, ...) are rapidly turning into a right-wing propaganda instrument. Musk bought Twitter to practice "social engineering", and basically every bigger tech platform has flanked Trump at inauguration. At this point, i expect that most people get more propaganda from their feed than actual knowledge or news.

I guess it would be better to recognize that the internet is simply a dangerous tool if it can basically tell everybody what to think, and i'm worried that with the very low critical thinking skill that most people seem to have, that's definitely a world we're heading towards. (I'm searching for the 196 meme about the bald officer pretending to be an e-girl for people deployed to iran but i can't find it).

[–] WatDabney@sopuli.xyz 35 points 3 days ago (1 children)

The web was here before greedy sacks of shit monetized everything and it'll still be here after they go broke.

[–] blah3166@piefed.social 17 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Right? If anything I think the web is having its renaissance moment with distributed/federated platforms like piefed, lemmy, kbin/mbin, bookwyrm, peertube, mastodon, pixelfed, misskey, matrix, XMPP, Deltachat, nostr, etc.

[–] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

I wouldn't call it "renaissance" but rather "decentralization", "democratization" or "unshittification"

[–] Alloi@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

let it die.

[–] ICastFist@programming.dev 0 points 1 day ago

Can anything save it? Yes: REGULATION. Regulate all this shit (AI, online advertising, webcrawlers) down to the pixel if needed. Fine the companies and their CEOs into 3 generations of bankruptcy.

But, since politicians are either too stupid, too old, too corrupt, or any combination thereof, nothing's gonna happen.

Nah

p e a c e

[–] DandomRude@lemmy.world 17 points 3 days ago (1 children)

That was entirely predictable. First, social media companies earned billions from other people's content, and now AI companies are doing the same.

But hey, it's all good as long as the bots generate ad clicks and the companies that place ads don't realize that the traffic is generated by bots — since they usually rely unquestioningly on the KPIs of Meta, Google, and the like, this will certainly take a while.

/s, mostly.

[–] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 2 days ago (3 children)

what if consumerism goes down because people have less money and then companies realize that advertisement doesn't pay off anymore?

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Wow. When I think of all the things I've read about that were "killing" the web it's a wonder my browser even works. And yet here we are.

[–] esc27@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Perhaps if the major sites and search engines had not spent the last decade filling the results with ads and SEO'd click bait trash people wouldn't be embracing AI as a way around that mess. Of course it's only a matter of time before the AI results get "optimised" as well.

Edit: not to mention, cookie prompts, notification requests, newsletter sign up requests, pay walls, and a host of other nags.

[–] Cherry@piefed.social 16 points 3 days ago

Ah cooked the golden goose and now complaining. It’s as bad as cinemas/Hollywood, they got greedy took advantage and when people moved away wondered why. Make a product people like and they will use it. They don’t care they are losing viewers. They care they arnt making money.

[–] TomMasz@piefed.social 14 points 3 days ago (1 children)

The web was built by people sharing things with each other, without expecting to get paid for it. That part of the web still exists, if you know where to look. Even before AI, hyper-aggressive SEO made it so those sites ended up on the fourth or fifth page of search results. Now those who used that SEO to get clicks are discovering what it's like to get bypassed. Good.

[–] RedDragonArchfiend@sh.itjust.works 8 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I wish I knew where to look!

[–] floofloof@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 days ago

That's the problem. Back in the day you could use a search engine to find this stuff. Not any more.

I guess the difficulty of monetizing writing and news is similar to the difficulty of monetizing software development.

Somehow, for the last 20 years, monetizing software development has worked well enough. People worked for Google or Facebook or idk who and they earned wages that way. Around 2015, i could notice lots of programming jobs being outsourced to India. In 2022, all big tech firms have issues rounds of mass layoffs. Last week, i've seen numerous posts on various platforms saying that it's getting more difficult to find a job after graduating college in CS.

AI is threatening white-collar jobs. But it's not just AI that's a singular phenomenon here, rather you'd have to look at it in a wider context: AI basically copy-pastes what it has been trained on, while combining it into new material. This wouldn't be possible if there wasn't large amounts of training texts available. In a certain sense, once there's enough reference material available, AI can always copy these templates and generate works based on them. As such, only a finite training heap of material is ever necessary to produce by human's hands.

The situation is a bit different for news articles as they have to do research in the real-world, and that cannot simply be done by an AI. Still, monetizing texts is more difficult in a world where inflation is high and people have less money to spend on consumerism, ads are getting less effective, and newspapers struggle to be independent.

The internet was a mistake. We know that now. People have never been more connected yet never been more lonely. It's a trap, a false oasis. AI could kill it and I'd sleep happy. There has to be a way to make the tech work FOR us instead of AGAINST us.

[–] JoMiran@lemmy.ml 11 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I fully expect the return and rise of curated micro-webs full of paid human created content. Less quantity, higher quality.

Just look at This Week In Videogames. The only reason it exists is to bring back "the OG" gaming publication experience. There are others starting to go this route too, like 404 Media.

[–] fckreddit@lemmy.ml 7 points 3 days ago

So we might be able to go back to internet of the 90s? Honestly, that might be for the best, imo. Small blogs, forums and maybe fediverse. Screw internet that is essentially a few monolithic silos that are now just full of crap.

[–] twinnie@feddit.uk 8 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I honestly don’t care. There’s like five companies running the whole internet now and they’re all shit. Burn it down.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] chromodynamic@piefed.social 7 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Perhaps some kind of fediweb that allows sites to rank other sites for trustworthiness. Then as a user you mark a few sites as trusted, and use their judgement to find more sites.

[–] nthavoc@lemmy.today 16 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (4 children)

You mean kind of like how the web was when it first started in the 90's with curated websites and when Yahoo was a thing?

[–] warbond@lemmy.world 7 points 3 days ago

Bring back web rings!

[–] atrielienz@lemmy.world 5 points 3 days ago

Yep. That's a web ring.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›