Google is beginning to implement a change in the way it displays search results. Thanks to artificial intelligence, it can offer a summary of the web page in question, so the user doesn't have to bother clicking and reading the article. A study has determined that this leads, in some cases, to reductions of up to 80% in the traffic generated by the search engine in media outlets. Another study, this one by the Pew Research Center, indicates that links at the end of the summary are only clicked one in every hundred times. Google rejects this figure, but it's clear we're talking about a massive impact. And it's not just about losing visits, which could be monetized by the media outlets that produced that information, but it also directly frustrates the possibility of creating a connection between an individual and a headline. In the physical world, this business model wouldn't make any sense: I have a banana shop and people have to buy them... or a third party can come along, pick a banana, peel it, and give it away for free (for now!) to a ticket taker, all while minimizing my fruit shop's sign. That way, anyone can do business, taking someone else's raw material for free.
Because the chances of preventing this thief are impossible—Google has too much power and, along with the others, big tech has imposed a perverse model—one can only hope to agree on a few crumbs of compensation. Now, I also believe it can be a catalyst. We've had a couple of decades in which numerous media outlets made editorial decisions more concerned with search engines than with readers. Those who know how to find a direct connection with the public, without depending on an intermediary who will now steal their traffic and notoriety, will be central to their community and will have a better chance of surviving than those who rely excessively on clickbait.
