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

Google is burying the web alive

nymag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 208 posts

Re: Google is burying the web alive

#161

Post by sushid »

kevingadd wrote: post #68
bilater wrote: post #40

So if Google innovates with AI, it's a problem because they're hiding their "ten blue links." But if they don't, they're suffering from the innovator's dilemma and are going to die with their ten blue links. The fact is, Google is so big that they're always going to upset some people. Embracing AI and moving forward is the only thing they can do.

Why is it a foregone conclusion that embracing AI is the only way to move forward, and that embracing AI is necessary to succeed? I'm certainly curious to see how it works out - it's a possible source of growth etc - but it's weird to me seeing people just assume that AI is not only The Future but is The Only Future.

If Google doesn't do this, people will slowly (or even quickly, who knows?) move to Perplexity, ChatGPT, etc. I know I personally would abandon Google entirely if it didn't summarize results and help me avoid the SEO slopfest.

Re: Google is burying the web alive

#162

Post by gloosx »

How to fix Google:

1. Install User-Agent Switcher for Chrome plugin.

2. Choose older browser, like IE 10 or Iphone 6, refresh the page.

3. You're now getting "old google" results. Seeing first 5 links without scrolling. Accurate and concise.

The contrast is STARK. There is no "AI overview". There is no "From sources across the web". There is no "People also ask". No "People also search for". No "At a glance" section. No "Images" section, nor "youtube" section taking 50% of the page. No "Short videos" tab. Just. Search. Results.

Re: Google is burying the web alive

#163

Post by timonofathens »

nicbou wrote: post #46

I can weigh in on this. I run a small information website ( https://allaboutberlin.com ). My traffic has been growing steadily for 7 years, but now its down 30-ish percent year on year. From what I'm hearing, my competitors (and friends) are having it worse. My main mission is to put new information on the internet. It's harder to do this if AI destroys the economics of it. It's also harder without an audience who pr…

[dead]

Re: Google is burying the web alive

#164

Post by coffeecat »

tmnvix wrote: post #115

I've said this before, but I sincerely believe that a human-curated internet directory would be a great resource. Maybe something along the lines of Yahoo Directory revived? Organised using the dewey system could be useful. A library for the internet. I'd love to be able to look up something like say 'shoe repair' and find a host of high quality resources such as videos, tutorials, suppliers, etc, all vetted by real…

Surely, someone must have already thought of this. Perhaps what we really need is a curated index of curated indices.

Re: Google is burying the web alive

#165

Post by mike_hearn »

nicbou wrote: post #118
mike_hearn wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want readers more than impact you might want to consider something like a Substack. The paying audience would be smaller, but, it's not crawlable by AI (at least not today). Still, it's a bit ironic that your own website advises people to use bots to get apartments (thus bypassing the work put into the adverts and apartment hunting sites), whilst also decrying bots who would bypass your site. More generally pe…

A walled garden or paywalled website would go completely against the website's ethos. Everything is meant to be free for everyone. "Information wants to be free." Besides, those who stand to benefit the most from that information are the ones who can the least afford it. The bots are not a solution, they're table stakes. Withholding that information would not do anyone any justice.

If your goal is for information to be as free as possible, then having AI read it is the best possible outcome. But it sounds like you have other goals too involving personal satisfaction, maybe community building etc. All very fair and reasonable goals to have, but they inherently conflict with "information wants to be free".

Re: Google is burying the web alive

#166

Post by paulette449 »

nicbou wrote: post #46

I can weigh in on this. I run a small information website ( https://allaboutberlin.com ). My traffic has been growing steadily for 7 years, but now its down 30-ish percent year on year. From what I'm hearing, my competitors (and friends) are having it worse. My main mission is to put new information on the internet. It's harder to do this if AI destroys the economics of it. It's also harder without an audience who pr…

Thanks for sharing. I've been thinking of creating a non-revenue online guide to my new city, Lyon, France, but I've been concerned that I'd only be feeding the AI machine.

Re: Google is burying the web alive

#167

Post by mike_hearn »

nicbou wrote: post #119
qkeast wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Still, it's a bit ironic that your own website advises people to use bots to get apartments (thus bypassing the work put into the adverts and apartment hunting sites), whilst also decrying bots who would bypass your site. I believe these are pretty different scenarios. There's an ongoing, massive shortage of apartments in Berlin, and bots here often aren't bypassing "work put into adverts and apartment hunting sites…

If you have a zero sum game, any advice you give is creating an arms race. The only solution is to have fewer Berliners or more housing.

Or eliminate rent control, allowing prices to float to the level people are actually willing to pay. You only see bot-driven stuff like that in cases where desirable goods are being deliberately under-priced.

Re: Google is burying the web alive

#168

Post by ElFitz »

nicbou wrote: post #120
ElFitz wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He's just not getting paid anymore. Or the credit. Or even just the feedback. Even LLMs get at least some feedback.

This is a surprisingly taxing change. There's a difference between giving free eggs to your neighbours, and giving free eggs to the Holiday Inn across town.

Exactly.

Re: Google is burying the web alive

#169

Post by anal_reactor »

droidist2 wrote: post #146
anal_reactor wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd like to limit my online time, but I'm so addicted to the internet, even though it's pure garbage nowadays. Any practical tips? It's not about putting away the phone, it's about... the hope that maybe this time I'll read something funny or informative, as I have absolutely no other sources of information or social interaction. "Go out and talk to people" isn't valid advice. It's never been, but in 2025 finally eve…

> "Go out and talk to people" isn't valid advice. It's never been, but in 2025 finally even the mainstream is slowly admitting that this doesn't work. Why doesn't it work?

a) people go out to spend time with already established friends, not talk to random strangers

b) people don't want to be approached by random strangers

c) I want to be friends with people who have similar lifestyle and values to me and create deeper connections

d) people have busy schedules and don't have time to meet

Source: I've tried

> but you haven't tried this particular activity that I recommend so you cannot tell that nothing works

Shut up. The ROI is just not there, and I'm happier just sitting at home smoking weed rather than keep chasing the high of a good conversation I've had five years ago. I'm not happy this way, but definitely happier.

Re: Google is burying the web alive

#170

Post by nicbou »

mike_hearn wrote: post #165
nicbou wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A walled garden or paywalled website would go completely against the website's ethos. Everything is meant to be free for everyone. "Information wants to be free." Besides, those who stand to benefit the most from that information are the ones who can the least afford it. The bots are not a solution, they're table stakes. Withholding that information would not do anyone any justice.

If your goal is for information to be as free as possible, then having AI read it is the best possible outcome. But it sounds like you have other goals too involving personal satisfaction, maybe community building etc. All very fair and reasonable goals to have, but they inherently conflict with "information wants to be free".

It's not. It strips me of my income, meaning I have to survive through other means. Of course I have other goals! One of them is to make rent.

For the readers, it also strips the information of a lot of nuance. I obsess over word choice for a reason. Then there are the footnotes, the citations, and the purpose-built tools embedded in the content.

As I said, I also lose access to the community and its feedback and encouragement.

That's now, before tech companies start throwing ads on top of the information it hoovered from my website. I'm glad that for a while, destroying the independent web will create value for the shareholders.

Post reply on HN