Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

As AI kills search traffic, Google launches Offerwall to boost publisher revenue

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 112 posts

Re: As AI kills search traffic, Google launches Offerwall to boost publisher revenue

#101

Post by Incipient »

csallen wrote: post #99
Incipient wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's really not the reality. AI spam is diluting the voice of 'new entrants' and removing any traffic based revenue they may get. All I can see AI doing is entrenching those large enough to integrate it into their offerings in a meaningful way, and sustain a significantly lower cost base. I use copilot at $10/mo. Gpt4.1 costs $2/m in and $8/m out. I'd do that in a single day, easily. There is no way any product I try…

I think the problem is your mindset. While you're coming up with reasons why you can't succeed, I know hundreds of people who are actually building things that are successful. I mean TypingMind.com is literally just a GPT wrapper built and maintained by a single guy, and it makes hundreds of thousands of dollars per month. If I told you I dropped a million dollars in the Pacific Ocean, would you look for it? No. What…

I never said you can't succeed.

Also that's a very different use case as that product requires you to provide your own API key, so they're not wearing the cost of API calls. It's also a one-off fee, so hundreds of thousands per month seems like a huge number of sales.

Also that person had a great idea with typing mind.

Also your point is well taken about mindset. From a random person half way across the globe, I do want to say you've made a difference today haha, genuinely.

Re: As AI kills search traffic, Google launches Offerwall to boost publisher revenue

#102

Post by Ferret7446 »

dpacmittal wrote: post #5

Is it only me who feels its incredibly unfair for publishers, that not only did big tech trained their LLMs on free content authored by these publishers, but it's also killing their future revenue. It's like stealing from someone and then making sure they never make money again.

Not really. They created their own business by creating an artificial monopoly called copyright. The government enforced and defended their monopoly enabling them to profit. It was never sustainable, and now the forces of reality are crushing the scheme. Information wants to be free, much as gravity makes the apple fall to the ground, and RNA has created the entire ecosystem on this planet simply to sustain and replicate itself.

The publishers are really no different than, say, printers with their DRM ink. Is it unfair that their business can no longer benefit from an enforced monopoly? Let me get out the world's smallest violin for this one.

Re: As AI kills search traffic, Google launches Offerwall to boost publisher revenue

#103

Post by Ferret7446 »

AstroBen wrote: post #13
dpacmittal wrote: post #5

Is it only me who feels its incredibly unfair for publishers, that not only did big tech trained their LLMs on free content authored by these publishers, but it's also killing their future revenue. It's like stealing from someone and then making sure they never make money again.

Yeah and then what happens in 2026 onwards? No one's going to put in the work to create high quality original content when they can't monetize it..

Why not? If high quality original content is valuable, then people will pay for it. If no one will pay for it, then is it really valuable?

And in any case, your hypothesis is disproved by the existence of free software, to say nothing of amateurs [1] in all fields. Clearly, people are willing to make valuable things without monetary incentive.

[1]: a person who engages in a pursuit on an unpaid rather than a professional basis.

Re: As AI kills search traffic, Google launches Offerwall to boost publisher revenue

#104

Post by _DeadFred_ »

csallen wrote: post #98
_DeadFred_ wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wish you would have broken out the reality that disruption plus zero safety net = some people made homeless, some people commiting suicide, lots of people going hungry. The reality that a large amount of people 'disrupted' later in life don't recover to where they were.

You can believe in disruption and innovation and a stronger social safety net at the same time. These aren't opposing ideas. In fact, they're complementary ideas, because countries with competitive and innovative markets have a higher GDP and thus more funds to support a stronger social safety net. The opposite is also true -- countries that are low in productivity and innovation have lower means to lift their own pe…

Sure you can have both. But we don't.

Re: As AI kills search traffic, Google launches Offerwall to boost publisher revenue

#105

Post by _DeadFred_ »

csallen wrote: post #93
_DeadFred_ wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please follow HN etiquette and respond to my position not call it hilarious. Also sorry for the wall of text. You ignored my point on copyright and 'what about'd your own as if that makes copyright law somehow not currently exist. Without copyright you would have market failure. Who will invest in Bob's business if Tom can just undercut him? Who would make a multi-million dollar movie in your world? Write text books?…

1. Capitalism I think you are misunderstanding a fundamental part of capitalism and markets, which is leading you to incorrect conclusions. You seem to be assuming that there are a limited number of business models out there, and that they need to be very specifically (and legally) identified and protected in order for the economy to thrive. Or how else could you come to the conclusion that the market would fail with…

I am saying existing laws exist, businesses must be required to follow them or we create perverse incentive like the entirety of modern tech which 'optimizes' by breaking the law. I am saying any company that breaks the law to get it's 'first mover' position should lose that position.

I in no way championed rent seeking laws. You diverged into that discussion to what about my position. I simply stated that laws exist and ignoring them to gain an upper hand on your competition who follows the law isn't actually real competition, with the added position that copyright for the majority of modern western civilization was an understood compromise that benefits/has created modern society, modern capital markets, etc and therefore works in parallel to capitalism (capital markets don't work without copyright and patents except to fund thing like existing businesses such a bakers).

Re: As AI kills search traffic, Google launches Offerwall to boost publisher revenue

#106

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 »

1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #100
dpacmittal wrote: post #5

Is it only me who feels its incredibly unfair for publishers, that not only did big tech trained their LLMs on free content authored by these publishers, but it's also killing their future revenue. It's like stealing from someone and then making sure they never make money again.

It's not only you. "Big Tech" does not create anything. Even when it clearly has the budget to do so. Instead, it copies and intermediates (plays the middleman).

Without free use of other peoples' work as bait for luring in ad targets (so-called "content"), "Big Tech" companies have no "business model".

Re: As AI kills search traffic, Google launches Offerwall to boost publisher revenue

#107

Post by csallen »

_DeadFred_ wrote: post #105
csallen wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. Capitalism I think you are misunderstanding a fundamental part of capitalism and markets, which is leading you to incorrect conclusions. You seem to be assuming that there are a limited number of business models out there, and that they need to be very specifically (and legally) identified and protected in order for the economy to thrive. Or how else could you come to the conclusion that the market would fail with…

I am saying existing laws exist, businesses must be required to follow them or we create perverse incentive like the entirety of modern tech which 'optimizes' by breaking the law. I am saying any company that breaks the law to get it's 'first mover' position should lose that position. I in no way championed rent seeking laws. You diverged into that discussion to what about my position. I simply stated that laws exist…

> * I in no way championed rent seeking laws *

You're simply saying "laws should be followed", and my retort is that different laws are different. You aren't really acknowledging that point, or any other points I made in defense of breaking some laws, and so our conversation has reached a standstill.

> (capital markets don't work without copyright and patents except to fund thing like existing businesses such a bakers)

I don't understand this point of view. Take software, for example. Websites have been copying each other's designs for ages, with minimal actual use of copyrights or patents. Almost no startup founder who creates a new web app is counting on defensibility coming from IP law. In fact, quite the opposite, the ethos is that whatever functionality and interfaces you develop will likely be copied by competitors, and that "moats" should come from things like a first-mover advantage, social features, brand loyalty, customer relationships, etc.

I'd say that, for the vast majority of business models that power the economy, it's obvious they could and would continue to exist without IP protection. Consulting, coaching, legal services, design agencies, marketplaces (e.g. eBay and Crisglist), social networks, online forums, SaaS tools, DTC brands, Amazon-like retail sites, food delivery, freight companies, logistic companies, live events, news coverage, platforms (eg. Shopify), restaurants, cafes, apparel companies, gyms, most apps, festivals and shows and live performances, etc. I could go on.

For those business models where it's not obvious, I'd still bet money that they would continue to thrive, and might simply take a different shape or require some creative pivots, rely on trade secrets, etc. Except to prevent bad actors and consumer abuse, the market does not need government simulation to inspire people to do business. And the vast majority of all profit models are discovered by creative individuals, not mandated by unnecessary laws.

IP law is largely just rent seeking created via regulatory capture by incumbents who stand to benefit from it. These incumbents have spent decades trying to convince the public that IP law is necessary for the economy (it isn't) and that it's also morally just because copying and riffing are identical to theft (they aren't).

Re: As AI kills search traffic, Google launches Offerwall to boost publisher revenue

#108

Post by beej71 »

xboxnolifes wrote: post #90
beej71 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A few of us will. :) I give my stuff away for free with no ads. Maybe the web will get small again.

It will be small again. Less high quality content in the future is the current path.

I think there will be less high quality content, but a greater density of high quality content.

Re: As AI kills search traffic, Google launches Offerwall to boost publisher revenue

#109

Post by amirmi78 »

candiddevmike wrote: post #50
softwaredoug wrote: post #3

AI kills search traffic. Yes. OTOH good search - deep research - is one of the biggest productivity gains using AI.

Using AI to do research almost seems worse than citing wikipedia as a reference.

The same people who cited Wikipedia instead of its sources are probably the same people who cite AI instead of its sources. New scope for people with a stick.

Re: As AI kills search traffic, Google launches Offerwall to boost publisher revenue

#110

Post by csallen »

_DeadFred_ wrote: post #104
csallen wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can believe in disruption and innovation and a stronger social safety net at the same time. These aren't opposing ideas. In fact, they're complementary ideas, because countries with competitive and innovative markets have a higher GDP and thus more funds to support a stronger social safety net. The opposite is also true -- countries that are low in productivity and innovation have lower means to lift their own pe…

Sure you can have both. But we don't.

Which is why it perplexes me that so many people are focused on trying to tear down the good thing we have, instead of fixing the broken thing.
Post reply on HN