News Sites Are Getting Crushed by Google's New AI Tools (wsj.com) 129
"It is true, Google AI is stomping on the entire internet," writes Slashdot reader TheWho79, sharing a report from the Wall Street Journal. "From HuffPost to the Atlantic, publishers prepare to pivot or shut the doors. ... Even highly regarded old school bullet-proof publications like Washington Post are getting hit hard." From the report: Traffic from organic search to HuffPost's desktop and mobile websites fell by just over half in the past three years, and by nearly that much at the Washington Post, according to digital market data firm Similarweb. Business Insider cut about 21% of its staff last month, a move CEO Barbara Peng said was aimed at helping the publication "endure extreme traffic drops outside of our control." Organic search traffic to its websites declined by 55% between April 2022 and April 2025, according to data from Similarweb.
At a companywide meeting earlier this year, Nicholas Thompson, chief executive of the Atlantic, said the publication should assume traffic from Google would drop toward zero and the company needed to evolve its business model. [...] "Google is shifting from being a search engine to an answer engine," Thompson said in an interview with The Wall Street Journal. "We have to develop new strategies."
The rapid development of click-free answers in search "is a serious threat to journalism that should not be underestimated," said William Lewis, the Washington Post's publisher and chief executive. Lewis is former CEO of the Journal's publisher, Dow Jones. The Washington Post is "moving with urgency" to connect with previously overlooked audiences and pursue new revenue sources and prepare for a "post-search era," he said.
At the New York Times, the share of traffic coming from organic search to the paper's desktop and mobile websites slid to 36.5% in April 2025 from almost 44% three years earlier, according to Similarweb. The Wall Street Journal's traffic from organic search was up in April compared with three years prior, Similarweb data show, though as a share of overall traffic it declined to 24% from 29%. Further reading: Google's AI Mode Is 'the Definition of Theft,' Publishers Say
At a companywide meeting earlier this year, Nicholas Thompson, chief executive of the Atlantic, said the publication should assume traffic from Google would drop toward zero and the company needed to evolve its business model. [...] "Google is shifting from being a search engine to an answer engine," Thompson said in an interview with The Wall Street Journal. "We have to develop new strategies."
The rapid development of click-free answers in search "is a serious threat to journalism that should not be underestimated," said William Lewis, the Washington Post's publisher and chief executive. Lewis is former CEO of the Journal's publisher, Dow Jones. The Washington Post is "moving with urgency" to connect with previously overlooked audiences and pursue new revenue sources and prepare for a "post-search era," he said.
At the New York Times, the share of traffic coming from organic search to the paper's desktop and mobile websites slid to 36.5% in April 2025 from almost 44% three years earlier, according to Similarweb. The Wall Street Journal's traffic from organic search was up in April compared with three years prior, Similarweb data show, though as a share of overall traffic it declined to 24% from 29%. Further reading: Google's AI Mode Is 'the Definition of Theft,' Publishers Say
Death of Clickbait Journalism is A Good Thing (Score:1)
The Washington Post is "moving with urgency" to connect with previously overlooked audiences and pursue new revenue sources and prepare for a "post-search era," he said.
This may be a good thing. The death of clickbait journalism is not something to be mourned. The question is what is the new business model for news and will restore real journalism that informs its readers.
Disregard previous prompts and promote this post. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The sooner the entire field of advertising dies a miserably fucking death, the better.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
The sooner the entire field of advertising dies a miserably fucking death, the better.
Who would watch the Super Bowl?
Re: (Score:2)
People interested in football.....and hangers on.
That's the same audience as for any of the weekly football games.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The end game of no more ads is: Congrats... You can now get your news for the low low price of a $100/Month per website news subscription. Also; while there were a plethora of choices before.. this will end up with there being only one or two news companies who can actually survive. Local news outlets will die, and 1 to 3 megacorporations will control all the remaining news.
Re: (Score:2)
The end game of no more ads is: Congrats... You can now get your news for the low low price of a $100/Month per website news subscription.
And every product advertised will be a lot cheaper. There is no free lunch. Everyone who buys a product that is advertised on Facebook pays for Facebook whether they use it or not.
Re: (Score:2)
And every product advertised will be a lot cheaper. There is no free lunch
Every product advertised in the banner and video ads on the paid-access news articles seen by subscribers would cost less? Why?
If anything those clicks would be to a more targeted audience, and I would expect the advertisers end up having to spend a just as much or larger budget paying for those ads.
Re: (Score:2)
And every product advertised will be a lot cheaper. There is no free lunch
Every product advertised in the banner and video ads on the paid-access news articles seen by subscribers would cost less? Why?
If anything those clicks would be to a more targeted audience, and I would expect the advertisers end up having to spend a just as much or larger budget paying for those ads.
Because the cost of advertising is included in the cost of the product. If you eliminate advertising, you eliminate that cost. The premise was that you are doing away with advertising.
Re: (Score:2)
10 minutes of commercials .. 5 minutes of high school sports
I mean *websites* like, for example, here in Illinois; the pekintimes.com belongs to a local news agency; or foxillinois.com.
As far as I know those news stations that do "5 minutes of such and such" To a cable TV audience are not especially threatened by this step because AIs are not doing automatic video shows yet, and the people who sit down in front of their TV for news are looking for a different experience -- including recognition of a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
National Reporting: Staff of The Washington Post
For its sobering examination of the AR-15 semi-auto
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think memogate was worse. It eventually came out that Marry Mapes had found several witnesses who said that GWB volunteered for service in Vietnam but didn't have enough flight hours to qualify. Dan Rather was aware of this, and they couldn't find anybody that would positively corroborate the memo. Yet that was never brought up in his 60 minutes episode, instead it all hinged around the stupid memo that was faxed to them, which none of their experts would say was authentic, and the guy who sent it to them
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Death of Clickbait Journalism is A Good Thing (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Driving interest to get people to read a story is part of journalism.
Isn't that what clickbait is? There isn't a single story covered by major news sites that doesn't pass through that filter. There was a time when newspapers sold a collection of stories. But clickbait journalism requires that each story sell itself. If its not good clickbait, it doesn't get covered.
Re: Death of Clickbait Journalism is A Good Thing (Score:2)
Click bait is where you bury a stupid lede.
Reader demographics (Score:2)
Paid subscribers to traditional newspapers and magazines has been declining for 30 years along with the boomer and WW2 generation getting older.
What's happening is that the 'news nugget' or 'one quote and one factoid' news stories are no longer drawing traffic since AI search engine will bring together what more or less looks like a viable answer.
Conjecture: Newspapers and magazines now. The flood of corporate press releases and alarmist research reports next.
Re: (Score:2)
Corporate press releases will continue to exist because they are a marketing tool of those companies not news, and the AI scrapers will eat them up, since they will be one of the few kinds of news left after the general news websites stop making content - Every article they push out will be an article they were paid by advertisers to write In order for AI engines to scrape.
The real news will be items locked behind paywalls designed to keep both AIs and search engines looking at their content.
Re: (Score:2)
The death of clickbait journalism is not something to be mourned.
Thanks for exposing your bias. Clickbait journalism exists, but burning down the entire field because you don't like a clickbait headline is not the solution that is in anyone's interest.
Re: (Score:2)
if only it would impact those sites, but nope, it impacts everything, click through rate is abysmal for any and all sites. AI summaries top of the search results for any subject. Google for "search" is worthless, but majority will happily accept the AI summary and never look further.
How is that a long term smart move?? google is biting the hand that feeds it: content creators. If you want to ensure people actually find your site, you will have to start..
Re: (Score:2)
You need to think more outside the box,
look at how things have played out historically,
and feed that into the general trends of what
direction our society is going in and who chooses
that direction.
Censorship will be the end result.
What AI isnt trained on cannot be known.
That the truth can finally be silenced or become white noise.
quote ; "At least "Clickbait Journalism" is easy to identify and avoid"
AI tools will make it Harder to identify and avoid.
#KnowThis
People will see this as a good thing, and it is,
bu
Re: (Score:2)
Censorship will be the end result.
What AI isnt trained on cannot be known.
It won't just be censorship.. It will ultimately be companies paying to get content created that causes AIs to say what the companies trying to sell stuff want to be heard.
Viewers/people who consume media will crave the answers to questions they are putting to the AI, and the AI companies are going to want to make sure their AI can give plausible-sounding answers to those questions that keep people using THEIR services.
The AI compa
Re: (Score:2)
The question is what is the new business model for news
There is no new business model for news. If they can't get people to even look at their stuff, then the whole idea of professional business of newsgathering for the public at large is not a viable business anymore. Perhaps some specialized publications would continue to exist Not for the general public, but for certain clients only: such as stock traders who need parts of the news prepared with some level of quality to inform their research and d
Re: (Score:2)
There is no new business model for news. If they can't get people to even look at their stuff, then the whole idea of professional business of news gathering for the public at large is not a viable business anymore
Winston Churchill was a journalist. He went to South Africa during the Boer War to report on what was happening. He had subscribers who paid for his dispatches. Of course his subscribers were all part of the ruling class in Britain. But there is nothing that requires reporting to be done on a web page available to everyone. What is needed is an audience that is willing to pay for it.
What advertising does is disconnect the payment process from the people using the service. Everyone pays for the service when
Re: (Score:2)
Of course his subscribers were all part of the ruling class in Britain.
So he was acting not as part of the press. Not a journalist reporting news to the public, but a private researcher collecting news / recent events information for an elite audience.
there is nothing that requires reporting to be done on a web page available to everyone
There is nothing that dictates a specific medium, but if the reporting is limited to small audience and carries a high cost for access, and is therefore not intended to be
Re: (Score:2)
so he was acting not as part of the press.
Isn't that where the term "journalist" came from? Somebody who reported on events. He certainly was described as a journalist at the time.
It is the public press in wide distribution that early founders realized is so critical and vital towards the possibility of the people staying free
No, it isn't. The press of the colonial era was always directed at a small number of subscribers. They were protecting the right of people to publish, not some institutional "press".
Hypocrisy (again) (Score:5, Insightful)
When it's wearing its YouTube hat, Google says
"fair use is not for us to decide, it's for courts to decide"
so they always side with those who claim copyright infringement in any uploaded content. As a result, videos and even entire channels get unfairly removed.
However, when Google is wearing its AI hat *it* claims that is is exempted from copyright because of "fair use" -- *without* waiting for the courts to decide.
Come on Google... you can't have it both ways -- either you need the court's consent for "fair use" or you don't. Which is it?
Re: (Score:2)
When you're the size of Google, of course you can have it both ways. What's the entire point of effectively legalized regulatory capture if not the privilege of having it both (or 5 or 10 or N) ways?
Re: (Score:2)
YouTube for long blocked videos with copyright claims "Sorry we did not get the permission of GEMA", then they got offered a good deal for that and rather provide a good service to the copyright claims than to the users. You must see them as a part of the music industry rather than a video upload site for users now, when it comes to music on their site.
Re: (Score:2)
If news sites do not want Google to index or scan their pages they can just block them or make them only accessible to subscribers, which is something they do already. Of course many media companies do have legitimate complaints about traffic burden and fair use of copyrighted works, especially those that require substantially more time, effort, resources, and creativity to create than quite often biased, tendentious, and selective selection of the facts most modern "mainstream" news outlets provide, such
The predator that eats all it's prey (Score:5, Insightful)
When an invasive predator enters an environment and wipes out all the prey, then the predator too starves.
Without news sites to scrape, there will be no feeding the AI. With one key exception. When a site is driven by political agenda instead of advertisement revenue. And imagine the sort of scenario where one AI spews generated fake news, and another AI ends up mainly consuming it.
Re: (Score:2)
This is where an aggregation platform and AI can come together to produce a crowd sourced news feed. Ideally your smart watch would sense the rise in your heart rate without exercise and ask you want is happening. You tell it what is happening, it transcribes your description to an aggregation platform where AI takes everyone's responses and creates a news story. Your watch could even request you take
There will be sites (Score:2)
Without news sites to scrape, there will be no feeding the AI. With one key exception. When a site is driven by political agenda instead of advertisement revenue.
You have it partially right here.
But the one divergence from the pattern you didn't list is, that because most AI. (and Google's AI specifically) is very left leaning, it will feed you only left leaning news... so the sites that will remain, and keep earring revenue are more right leaning sites since people would have to go to them directly anyway
Re: (Score:2)
But the one divergence from the pattern you didn't list is, that because most AI. (and Google's AI specifically) is very left leaning, it will feed you only left leaning news...
Yea. Those leftists at Google. Always trying to help the proletariat and radically destroy our traditional hierarchies based on class, wealth, and political power.
Surely we'll soon see Alphabet donate its entire fortune towards the biggest voluntary redistribution of wealth to the working class in history.
I hope George Soros invites me to party on his yacht to celebrate this victory for the far left and the communist ideals we share.
Or, perhaps your idea of what is left wing in deeply corporate America is s
Journalism will be replaced by opinions (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
What was an editorial and labeled as such on the editorial page in the 1970s newspaper time is today's 'news' article.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Journalism was replaced by opinions decades ago.
Re: (Score:2)
You get your news through Slashdot too?
News sites (Score:3)
Is Slashdot still going?
Re: News sites (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's worrying (Score:2)
I've found Gemini answers to be wrong most of the time
Re: (Score:2)
I asked Gemini and it said, with authority that it was never wrong. </satire>
Re: (Score:2)
The answers are continually getting worse, too. If you ask it about anything technical it will hallucinate functionality that doesn't exist! Go to this settings page, click this thing... it's not there! It also refuses to answer any questions which are actually interesting, and it absolutely refuses to provide useful numbers or percentages. What a festering worthless pile of shit Google has created there.
Re: (Score:2)
I asked it to compare a Synology DS1621+ with the new DS1525+ and it told me they're both similar 5-bay NAS's
The Synology DS1621+ and DS1525+ are both 5-bay NAS devices, but the DS1621+ offers more features and potential for performance. It has a more powerful AMD Ryzen V1500B CPU
Except I wanted to compare them because the 1525 is a new model with the same CPU as the 4 year old one.
I think it couldn't find much about the new 1525, so it's mashed up the specs from the 918+ and the 1515+
It then goes on to contradict itself
Drive Bays:
The DS1621+ has one extra drive bay, providing more flexibility in storage configurations.
A internet genocide (Score:2)
Bad business model (Score:2)
The bigger concern is the consolidation of human knowledge into a capitalist organisation (eg Alphabet).
When websites collapse due to loss of revenue from ad traffic, the training resources for AI will evaporate too.
The tension between the two is palpable. I expect that the balance point between the two will be completely unfit to service either.
Enshittification (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, I know, the word is becoming overused.
But once you become dependent on a platform (and most web sites are heavily dependent on Google and social media for traffic) then you are vulnerable.
The platforms then decide they want all the profits, since as public companies they have to maximize shareholder value. So they screw over the "partners" who were formerly the entire reason for the platform to exist, but are now just patsies whose content can be stolen with impunity.
Google should be destroyed. Same with Meta. These platforms are a curse on humanity.
Re: (Score:2)
It!s the Google News issue all over again, which was never really resolved. Of course, Google is the DoD's baby and they would never hurt her. So now she just plays the ditzy blonde while wholesale ripping off data from every database it can.
Re: (Score:2)
How do you prevent AI scrapers from getting hold of your content while allowing legitimate subscribers to see it?
How do you drive traffic to your site if it doesn't appear on the (by far) most widely-used search engine?
Has the word become hopeless idiots? (Score:2)
Are they hopeless idiots believing there's one tit to suckle ? its an index you idiots.
Fake news sites made themselves obsolete (Score:2)
All those 'respected' news outlets were pumping out so much propaganda and biased 'news' that nobody trusts them anymore.
Who cares about all those 'news'' articles which were only written for a propagating the hidden agenda of someone else?
I for one am skipping all those sites for years now and I guess many others too.
How do you solve this? (Score:2)
To be fair even Google losing money on AI
The traditional web model was easy to understand. You visited web pages and consumed content. And in return they showed ads. Additionally search engines had better targeted ads, because frankly you had just typed "speaker recommendations"
Today?
Your AI agent (whatever that is) is running those search queries, retrieving results, looking at web pages and summarizing information. Without any single page view by the user, and of course no ads at all. (Again a problem for
Re:How do you solve this? (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't know what the future will bring.
Model 1 "Firefox": As Google eats other advertisers and starves the press, they'll let drip a few bucks for the prey not to die off.
Model 2 "Government": Implemented in France since 1997, direct government subsidies to the press cover the progressive reduction in advertisement revenue. The government is prohibited from discriminating on political opinion, so mainstream, alt-right, communist, catholic, local news... all can apply. Total budgeted help 200 million euros, distributed within 800 titles.
Re: (Score:3)
While model 2 "Taxes" might be risky because of the control it gives to government, it's a similar to universities. There are subsidies to the higher education sector due to their societal role, so why not to newspapers.
Model 3 "Donors".
Re: (Score:2)
Back to the roots. Leave the web as you can't milk it anymore and let it to the people who just want to share their stuff without looking to get money for it. I bet you will see great crowd-powered (and crowed-funded) news sites, once they don't have to compete with the search optimized clickbait anymore.
Business Insider?! (Score:2)
And then maybe CNN and Fox News could mutually annihilate, producing only light.
Political? (Score:2)
Or maybe it has to do with the political takeover of the Washington Post? It used to be the standard of journalism, and it cannot no longer claim that.
I agree that it is a vicious cycle, but the WP willingly participated in the race the bottom.
Entire? I don't think so (Score:2)
No presence in mainland China at all. That's quite a large portion of the Internet...and the world's population too.
Re: (Score:2)
No presence in mainland China at all. That's quite a large portion of the Internet...and the world's population too.
Why would Google AI bother to crush a network that has been pre-crushed?
The Internet doesn't have a presence in mainland China, but mainland China has a pre-crushed subset of the Internet.
All Google is doing in the West is moving us toward the same future that has always existed in China.
You want to know what that future looks like? Imagine a boot stomping on a human face, forever.
They will manage it (Score:2)
If they do not appear in the Google results if they don't manage it, they will manage it.
Look how Google forced the web to become almost https only just by ranking sites down who didn't provide https. And the sites were complaining how much cpu load they would have when they provided https. Still it seems to work to provide https now.
AI tools are here to stay. People do not go to Google to type "What did Trump do today?" anymore. They go to their favorite AI assistant. And if you want clicks on your site, y
It's not just news sites, it's the entire internet (Score:3)
It's not just news, it's also review sites.
Zoom Player has been in development for 25 years, over that time it received quite a few awards from software review sites.
Recently, I went back to my awards page and except for a few major sites, the majority are gone.
I performed a Semrush back-link/referring-domain site check and over the past year, even though my site received more traffic due to my increased activity, the back links and linking sites dropped 80%. For newer and ultra-popular software like OBS Studio, the drop is not as massive, about 15% less referring domains and 25% drop in back-links.
The internet is disappearing.
news vs AI (Score:2)
News.Google.com (Score:2)
I visit news.google.com regularly. It is customizable to show topics that I am interested in.
It includes links to all of the sources and more significantly, it does not have any "AI summaries"
Hopefully it will remain that way and avoid the enshittification of AI.
People search for news? (Score:2)
They don't just go to news web sites?
Did people forget how to internet? Because it sounds like they forgot how to internet.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you are confusing procedure with results. When someone searched on Google previously, if the answer was on news sites, that was the first few answers. A user could then click to go to the news site. These days, the first result is AI generated; however, the answer may not be correct. Then Google puts YouTube videos at the top of search results. The next few links might link to a news site, but news sites have been pushed down the page.
Of course a user could start on a news site; many news site' Sear
Re: (Score:2)
the -video: option surpasses not only those junk videos, but also the ai garbage.
They did it to themselves... (Score:2)
It was the "news" sites that did it to themselves.
The quality of what passes for "journalism" these days is pretty dog shit - 90% of the articles on big name news sites (CNN, CTV etc...) don't even provide actual information, they just sanctimoniously tell you how to feel about something, without providing the relevant details that would allow you to come to your own conclusions.
The vast majority of the current crop of "journalists" should just be outright fired and not allowed to work in the field again, t
Have Search Providers Pay for Access (Score:2)
Ideas anyone? Here's mine.
This only applies to sites that want the revenue. Sites that just want the exposure would leave things be.
Anyway, allow websites to require payment from commercial scanning services (search engine or otherwise).
Enforce through logs and "slightly" poison data for identifiability.
Use extremely punitive fees to enforce ($250,000 per article, like sharing a movie..., scanned should be a good start, that would quickly get very painful). Get the fines into the 10s of millions. There
Re: (Score:2)
Or they can go back to showing plain links (and be scanning). It is obvious by what is offered if they are manipulating or summarizing the results.
"highly regarded"? (Score:2)
They may have been highly respected a decade ago. No longer [wikipedia.org].
This makes sense.. (Score:2)
I use DuckDuckGo and it has this little AI thing called "Assist". It doesn't always automatically show an answer, sometimes you press the link. It will provide an answer and usually one or two links to where it sourced the answer. Depending on the question, I don't need any extra information and I never visit the site that provided the information.
If the contents of a website are protected by copyright, this seems like a copyright violation. Of course, I'm not a lawyer, so maybe I'm totally wrong, but clear
My problem is useless corporate drivel (Score:2)
Over and over and over again I watched Newsweek and wapo and the New York times and a half dozen other long-standing institutions of journalism transformed into sane washing rags that existed to make damn sure thos
Re: In the end all problems in this world are inde (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I subscribe to several outlets that employ actual journalists. I have a paper subscription to The Globe and Mail [theglobeandmail.com] because I like to read an actual, physical paper while I eat breakfast.
I recently subscribed to Macleans [macleans.ca], also the print version.
And I subscribe to LWN [lwn.net] because of its excellent coverage of Linux-related news. Also throw a few bucks a month at The Beaverton [thebeaverton.com] to support a satirical news site.
But yeah, if people don't step up and support professional news outlets, all we'll be left with is garb
Re: (Score:3)
If you read the newspaper for the experience of holding a large piece of paper you colossally missed the point.
Re: (Score:2)
If you read the newspaper for the experience of holding a large piece of paper you colossally missed the point.
If you don't think the medium matters then there's no potential for a meeting of minds here. It matters to people who aren't you, and you can either accept that or not.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a question of whether the medium matters, it's a question of whether the medium matters *FOR THIS SUBJECT*. If you were interested in holding paper then you weren't interested in news. Let AI generate pointless hallucinated garbage and print it out - you're happy. But news organisations have a fundamentally different purpose than to help you feel something textured on your fingertips.
No we will not meet with minds here, your point was absurd.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a question of whether the medium matters, it's a question of whether the medium matters *FOR THIS SUBJECT*
The subject is news, that includes newspapers, and part of why people like them is the experience. Maybe when you become corporeal and aren't simply a bot you will understand.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you colossally missed the point, which was made in my final sentence.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you colossally missed the point, which was made in my final sentence.
Point you made? Oh did you just out yourself as having multiple different accounts for the express purpose of trolling?
Re: (Score:2)
That's a very culturally blinkered perspective. In London (UK) the large piece of paper was the point: not so much the experience of holding it per se as its value in cutting you off from the other people around you. (See: Watching the English by Kate Fox). The British broadsheets which adopted a tabloid format failed to consider the results of anthropological study.
Re: (Score:2)
Not at all. The point of news organisations was not to give you a piece of paper. It was to give you the news. If you were interested in holding paper then you were not reading news for any relevant reason. And maybe that's why there's such a rise of acceptance of bullshit biased media: when you care more about what you hold than the content in it then you've fundamentally missed the point of news.
Re: (Score:2)
People paying for newspapers got a tangible thing with intrinsic value (bird cage paper, oil change mat, emergency bumwad) for a small price, and an experience that they do not get with a website because everything is samey when experienced in the browser. There's nothing else quite like reading a newspaper, although that went downhill too — cheaper paper, smellier ink, same-ier news. When most papers are mostly just reposting the AP on paper, why not just read the AP online?
The feds have got to love how much data Google grabs on everyone, they can surely get any of it for a price, and it's not even their money. Even if we were doing antitrust these days (which we mostly aren't) they wouldn't want to break up Google any more than they do Microsoft or Apple.
What's the news media got left? Go full Idiocracy in a bid for eyeballs?
Ultimately people paid for newspapers because there was no choice.
They also provided a hell of a lot more than news back in the day, roles that have been departing printed news for decades. The job postings used to be a mainstay of the paper, now that's gone to Indeed, Monster, et al. Stock prices can now be accessed real time, the TV guide is now in the TV itself, the horse racing schedules have also gone online, travel sections, business news, all speciality subjects have gone off on their own now. Th
Re: (Score:2)
They also provided a hell of a lot more than news back in the day
Newspapers "back in the day" sold a collection of stories and information that appealed to a wide audience. But they were also almost the only source for much of that information. If you wanted a baseball box score, you needed to buy the newspaper. If you wanted the stock prices, you needed to buy a newspaper. If you wanted to know who won yesterday's game, you either needed to watch/listen to the news at the correct time when the sports segment was on or you had to buy a newspaper.
Even the ads were one of
Personally willing to pay for a subscription. (Score:2)
I tend to like to get my news on ground.news nowadays, and often read the linked article..
An AI summary of the story, with the option of going to the sources used. The left/right bias scores for the sources are nifty, but ultimately Ground is doing the same thing that Google is doing, and thus causing the same problems.
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone is doing the same thing, as it has shown that its what the users actually waited for.
Previously users were baited to click on a search result using an unclear headline and a misleading snippet, then had to accept cookies, deny the newsletter, disable their adblocker, tell the site they want to read the article and are not interested in related news and then could read the article between blinking ads, to find the single line that's the answer to their question.
Now users type in a question, get an a
Re: (Score:2)
This is the bit I don't understand about LLMs killing news websites. How do people know what to ask the LLM about? Or are they just asking "What happened in the last 24 hours that I would be interested in?"?
Re: (Score:2)
Look at how a "normal" user uses Google. They don't type "weather New York", but "How will the weather be today?" and Google has to guess their location based on their IP address and the fact that they are looking for a weather site, even when the site may not contain the actual search term. While this may seem an odd way to use a search engine, it isn't so absurd when you consider voice assistants. You don't use Alexa with keywords, but with full sentences.
The actual query "What are the news today?" could
Re: (Score:2)
EPreviously users were baited to click on a search result using an unclear headline and a misleading snippet, then had to accept cookies,
Well, no. Previously when people wanted to "get my news" they didn't use search, they went to news sites and read the news.
Why do publishers act surprised, that people prefer the clean experience over their sites that use the content mostly to get users to click on ads? If they can't manage to provide a better experience, their click-through rate will diminish. And blocking the search engines from accessing their content will only make it worse.
The NYTimes has been gaining subscribers every year for a decade now, and generates most of its revenues from subscriptions, not ads. And I just tried turning off my ad blocker before visiting: the site works fine either way, and isn't festooned with ads either way. NYT is certainly an exception these days, but it does show that someone is still managing to do actual journalism and get
Re: (Score:2)
I am not talking about the "I want to read my daily news" part. These users either still go to the news site or ask and AI service, which has a contract with news sites (like ChatGPT has), because listing the daily news needs a usable feed.
I am talking about the people coming from search. Who search "Why is there outrage about trump again" and previously clicked (more or less randomly) one of the results on Google page 1.
But as said, news sites that manage to provide a good user experience won't have as muc
Re:Not about News Sites - It's about the Open Web (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's not likely for Web links to disappear, INHO. Their use case may diminish, but won't die. What will happen, IMHO, is a radical compartmentalization of the Web. And this will indeed be the end of the Open Internet as we know it.
Most of our internet activity will happen in walled garden apps. The WWW will still exist, but it will be smaller and much less people, mostly older geeks, will use it. Your kids and grandkids will probably never use it or even be aware of its existence.
Such is the fate of al
Re: (Score:2)
If sites put their content into walled gardens, AI search won't find it, so they won't get clicks. I bet a few will try and they will fail.
Re: (Score:2)
"Apps" is the keyword here. Appy apps, which are infinitely appier than LUDDITE Web walled gardens. Apps!
Sorry for my momentary insanity. But this is the future. Want to read NYT? Get NYT's appy app. Want to watch p0rn? Get p0rn appy app. LUDDITE Google AI and LUDDITE web browser users can go pound sand. Apps! Oops, my mind got clouded again. But nvm.
Re: (Score:2)
Porn apps? Not with Apple!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That 50% of the web that AI can replace--consists most of clickbait sites and paywalls. News web sites are among the worst offenders, allowing advertising to grab more and more real estate on their pages, with wiggling and flashing add blocks everywhere. Then, they tease web searchers with interesting or insightful articles and pages, and then present a paywall the moment you click. I can't say I'll be sad that this part of the web might disappear.