Google Decided Against Offering Publishers Options In AI Search
(Monday May 19, 2025 @11:30PM (BeauHD)
from the would-you-look-at-that dept.)
- Reference: 0177647367
- News link: https://tech.slashdot.org/story/25/05/19/2054230/google-decided-against-offering-publishers-options-in-ai-search
- Source link:
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Bloomberg:
> While using website data to build a Google Search topped with artificial intelligence-generated answers, an Alphabet executive acknowledged in an internal document that there was an alternative way to do things: They could ask web publishers for permission, or let them directly opt out of being included. But giving publishers a choice [1]would make training AI models in search too complicated , the company concludes in the document, which was unearthed in the company's search antitrust trial.
>
> It said Google had a "hard red line" and would require all publishers who wanted their content to show up in the search page to also be used to feed AI features. Instead of giving options, Google decided to "silently update," with "no public announcement" about how they were using publishers' data, according to the document, written by Chetna Bindra, a product management executive at Google Search. "Do what we say, say what we do, but carefully."
"It's a little bit damning," said Paul Bannister, the chief strategy officer at Raptive, which represents online creators. "It pretty clearly shows that they knew there was a range of options and they pretty much chose the most conservative, most protective of them -- the option that didn't give publishers any controls at all."
For its part, Google said in a statement to Bloomberg: "Publishers have always controlled how their content is made available to Google as AI models have been built into Search for many years, helping surface relevant sites and driving traffic to them. This document is an early-stage list of options in an evolving space and doesn't reflect feasibility or actual decisions." They added that Google continually updates its product documentation for search online.
[1] https://www.livemint.com/companies/news/google-decided-against-offering-publishers-options-in-ai-search-11747686172399.html
> While using website data to build a Google Search topped with artificial intelligence-generated answers, an Alphabet executive acknowledged in an internal document that there was an alternative way to do things: They could ask web publishers for permission, or let them directly opt out of being included. But giving publishers a choice [1]would make training AI models in search too complicated , the company concludes in the document, which was unearthed in the company's search antitrust trial.
>
> It said Google had a "hard red line" and would require all publishers who wanted their content to show up in the search page to also be used to feed AI features. Instead of giving options, Google decided to "silently update," with "no public announcement" about how they were using publishers' data, according to the document, written by Chetna Bindra, a product management executive at Google Search. "Do what we say, say what we do, but carefully."
"It's a little bit damning," said Paul Bannister, the chief strategy officer at Raptive, which represents online creators. "It pretty clearly shows that they knew there was a range of options and they pretty much chose the most conservative, most protective of them -- the option that didn't give publishers any controls at all."
For its part, Google said in a statement to Bloomberg: "Publishers have always controlled how their content is made available to Google as AI models have been built into Search for many years, helping surface relevant sites and driving traffic to them. This document is an early-stage list of options in an evolving space and doesn't reflect feasibility or actual decisions." They added that Google continually updates its product documentation for search online.
[1] https://www.livemint.com/companies/news/google-decided-against-offering-publishers-options-in-ai-search-11747686172399.html
Translation (Score:2)
by 93 Escort Wagon ( 326346 )
'Once again, we decided to check the box marked "be evil" - for consistency's sake as much as anything.'
Re: (Score:2)
by Mr. Dollar Ton ( 5495648 )
Or another possible interpretation:
1. The legal fiction called "intellectual property" as it exists today stands firmly in the way of any innovation and
2. Unlike you, a very large company will always find a way to sidestep this legal roadblock to your detriment
At Google True == False (Score:2)
by Required Snark ( 1702878 )
Or to put it in GoogleSpeak (aka Newspeak/1984)
Don't be Evil => Profit is Good => Evil makes Profit => Evil is Good => True == False
Note: a new riff on an old theme. Wall Street has always been eager to wreck things and people for more profit.
Move along. Nothing to see here.
Re: (Score:2)
by stabiesoft ( 733417 )
Or they have switched from the old "do no evil" to the new "do only evil" slogan.
Pull the other one, it's got bells on (Score:2)
"Publishers have always controlled how their content is made available to Google as AI models have been built into Search for many years, helping surface relevant sites and driving traffic to them. This document is an early-stage list of options in an evolving space and doesn't reflect feasibility or actual decisions." Right, except that that "choice" is "feed the AI Overview, or don't get indexed": [1]https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/bu... [bnnbloomberg.ca] Now, it's Google's service and within the law, they can run it however th
[1] https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/business/technology/2024/08/15/googles-search-dominance-leaves-sites-little-choice-on-ai-scraping/
Re: (Score:2)
> Now, it's Google's service and within the law, they can run it however they want. But don't tell me about how much choice publishers have when the choice is as stark as that.
Not quite. It IS their service, and while they can do what they want, what they can do is constrained by laws. And one of those laws is they can't just leverage monopolies to force things that are outside of those monopolies. Google search is pretty much a monopoly with its only real rival Bing being more or less an unwanted side effec