Telegram, Did You Know about the Kiddie Pix Pyramid Scheme?
November 25, 2025
![green-dino_thumb_thumb[3]](https://www.arnoldit.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/green-dino_thumb_thumb3-5.gif "green-dino_thumb_thumb[3]")
Another dinobaby post. No AI unless it is an image. This dinobaby is not Grandma Moses, just Grandpa Arnold.
The Independent, a newspaper in the UK, published “Leader of South Korea’s Biggest Telegram Sex Abuse Ring Gets Life Sentence.” The subtitle is a snappy one: “Seoul Court Says Kim Nok Wan Committed Crimes of Extreme Brutality.” Note: I will refer to this convicted person as Mr. Wan. The reason is that he will spend time in solitary confinement. In my experience individuals involved in kiddie crimes are at bottom of the totem pole among convicted people. If the prison director wants to keep him alive, he will be kept away from the general population. Even though most South Koreans are polite, it is highly likely that he will face a less than friendly greeting when he visits the TV room or exercise area. Therefore, my designation of Mr. Wan reflects the pallor his skin will evidence.
Now to the story:
The main idea is that Mr. Wan signed up for Telegram. He relied on Telegram’s Group and Channel function. He organized a social community dubbed the Vigilantes, a word unlikely to trigger kiddie pix filters. Then he “coerced victims, nearly 150 of them minors, into producing explicit material through blackmail and then distribute the content in online chat rooms.”
Telegram’s leader sets an example for others who want to break rules and be worshiped. Thanks, Venice.ai. Too bad you ignored my request for no facial hair. Good enough, the standard for excellence today I believe.
Mr. Wan’s innovation weas to set up what the Independent called “a pyramid hierarchy.” Think of an Herbal Life- or the OneCoin-type operation. He incorporated an interesting twist. According to the Independent:
He also sent a video of a victim to their father through an accomplice and threatened to release it at their workplace.
Let’s shift from the clever Mr. Wan to Telegram and its public and private Groups and Channels. The French arrested Pavel Durov in August 2024. The French judiciary identified a dozen crimes he allegedly committed. He awaits trial for these alleged crimes. Since that arrest, Telegram has, based on our monitoring of Telegram, blocked more aggressively a number of users and Groups for violating Telegram’s rules and regulations such as they are. However, Mr. Wan appears to have slipped through despite Telegram’s filtering methods.
Several observations:
- Will Mr. Durov implement content moderation procedures to block, prevent, and remove content like Mr. Wan’s?
- Will South Korea take a firm stance toward Telegram’s use in the country?
- Will Mr. Durov cave in to Iran’s demands so that Telegram is once again available in that country?
- Did Telegram know about Mr. Wan’s activities on the estimable Telegram platform?
Mr. Wan exploited Telegram. Perhaps more forceful actions should be taken by other countries against services which provide a greenhouse for certain types of online activity to flourish? Mr. Durov is a tech bro, and he has been pictured carrying a real (not metaphorical) goat to suggest that he is the greatest of all time.
That perception appears to be at odds with the risk his platform poses to children in my opinion.
Stephen E Arnold, November 25, 2025
Tim Apple, Granny Scarfs, and Snooping
November 24, 2025
Another dinobaby post. No AI unless it is an image. This dinobaby is not Grandma Moses, just Grandpa Arnold.
I spotted a write in a source I usually ignore. I don’t know if the write up is 100 percent on the money. Let’s assume for the purpose of my dinobaby persona that it indeed is. The write up is “Apple to Pay $95 Million Settle Suit Accusing Siri Of Snoopy Eavesdropping.” Like Apple’s incessant pop ups about my not logging into Facetime, iMessage, and iCloud, Siri being in snoop mode is not surprising to me. Tim Apple, it seems, is winding down. The pace of innovation, in my opinion, is tortoise like. I haven’t nothing against turtle like creatures, but a granny scarf for an iPhone. That’s innovation, almost as cutting edge as the candy colored orange iPhone. Stunning indeed.
Is Frederick the Great wearing an Apple Granny Scarf? Thanks, Venice.ai. Good enough.
What does the write up say about this $95 million sad smile?
Apple has agreed to pay $95 million to settle a lawsuit accusing the privacy-minded company of deploying its virtual assistant Siri to eavesdrop on people using its iPhone and other trendy devices. The proposed settlement filed Tuesday in an Oakland, California, federal court would resolve a 5-year-old lawsuit revolving around allegations that Apple surreptitiously activated Siri to record conversations through iPhones and other devices equipped with the virtual assistant for more than a decade.
Apple has managed to work the legal process for five years. Good work, legal eagles. Billable hours and legal moves generate income if my understanding is correct. Also, the notion of “surreptitiously” fascinates me. Why do the crazy screen nagging? Just activate what you want and remove the users’ options to disable the function. If you want to be surreptitious, the basic concept as I understand it is to operate so others don’t know what you are doing. Good try, but you failed to implement appropriate secretive operational methods. Better luck next time or just enable what you want and prevent users from turning off the data vacuum cleaner.
The write up notes:
Apple isn’t acknowledging any wrongdoing in the settlement, which still must be approved by U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White. Lawyers in the case have proposed scheduling a Feb. 14 court hearing in Oakland to review the terms.
I interpreted this passage to mean that the Judge has to do something. I assume that lawyers will do something. Whoever brought the litigation will do something. It strikes me that Apple will not be writing a check any time soon, nor will the fine change how Tim Apple has set up that outstanding Apple entity to harvest money, data, and good vibes.
I have several questions:
- Will Apple offer a complementary Granny Scarf to each of its attorneys working this case?
- Will Apple’s methods of harvesting data be revealed in a white paper written by either [a] Apple, [b] an unhappy Apple employee, or [c] a researcher laboring in the vineyards of Stanford University or San Jose State?
- Will regulatory authorities and the US judicial folks take steps to curtail the “we do what we want” approach to privacy and security?
I have answers for each of these questions. Here we go:
- No. Granny Scarfs are sold out
- No. No one wants to be hassled endlessly by Apple’s legions of legal eagles
- No. As the recent Meta decision about WhatsApp makes clear, green light, tech bros. Move fast, break things. Just do it.
Stephen E Arnold, November 24, 2025
Creative Types: Sweating AI Bullets
October 30, 2025
Artists and authors are in a tizzy (and rightly so) because AI is stealing their content. AI algorithms potentially will also put them out of jobs, but the latest data from Nieman Labs explains that people are using chatbots for information seeking over content: “People Are Using ChatGPT Twice As Much As They Were Last Year. They’re Still Just As Skeptical Of AI In News.”
Usage has doubled of AI chatbots in 2024 compared to the previous years. It’s being used for tasks formerly reserved for search engines and news outlets. There is still ambivalence about the information it provides.
Here are stats about information consumption trends:
“For publishers worried about declining referral traffic, our findings paint a worrying picture, in line with other recent findings in industry and academic research. Among those who say they have seen AI answers for their searches, only a third say they “always or often” click through to the source links, while 28% say they “rarely or never” do. This suggests a significant portion of user journeys may now end on the search results page.
Contrary to some vocal criticisms of these summaries, a good chunk of population do seem to find them trustworthy. In the U.S., 49% of those who have seen them express trust in them, although it is worth pointing out that this trust is often conditional.”
When it comes to trust habits, people believe AI on low-stakes, “first pass” information or the answer is “good enough,” because AI is trained on large amounts of data. When the stakes are higher, people will do further research. There is a “comfort gap” between AI news and human oversight. Very few people implicitly trust AI. People still prefer humans curating and writing the news over a machine. They also don’t mind AI being used for assisting tasks such as editing or translation, but a human touch is still needed o the final product.
Humans are still needed as is old-fashioned information getting. The process remains the same, the tools have just changed.
Whitney Grace, October 30, 2025
Google Needs Help from a Higher Power
October 17, 2025
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
In my opinion, there should be one digital online service. This means one search system, one place to get apps, one place to obtain real time “real” news, and one place to buy and sell advertising. Wouldn’t that make life much easier for the company who owned the “one place.” If the information in “US Supreme Court Allows Order Forcing Google to Make App Store Reforms” is accurate, Google’s dream of becoming that “one place” has been interrupted.
The write up from a trusted source reports:
The declined on Monday [October 6, 2025] to halt key parts of a judge’s order requiring Alphabet’s, Google to make major changes to its app store Play, as the company prepares to appeal a decision in a lawsuit brought by “Fortnite” maker Epic Games. The justices turned down Google’s request to temporarily freeze parts of the injunction won by Epic in its lawsuit accusing the tech giant of monopolizing how consumers access apps on Android devices and pay for transactions within apps.
Imagine the nerve of this outfit. These highly trained, respected legal professionals did not agree with Google’s rock-solid, diamond-hard arguments. Imagine a maker of electronic games screwing up one of the modules in the Google money and data machine. The nerve.
Thanks, MidJourney, good enough.
The write up adds:
Google in its Supreme Court filing said the changes would have enormous consequences for more than 100 million U.S. Android users and 500,000 developers. Google said it plans to file a full appeal to the Supreme Court by October 27, which could allow the justices to take up the case during their nine-month term that began on Monday.
The fact that the government is shut down will not halt, impair, derail, or otherwise inhibit Google’s quest for the justice it deserves. If the case can be extended, it is possible the government legal eagles will seek new opportunities in commercial enterprises or just resign due to the intellectual demands of their jobs.
The news story points out:
Google faces other lawsuits from government, consumer and commercial plaintiffs challenging its search and advertising business practices.
It is difficult to believe that a firm with such a rock solid approach to business can find itself swatting knowledge gnats. Onward to the “one service.” Is that on a Google T shirt yet?
Stephen E Arnold, October 17, 2025
The Ka-Ching Game: The EU Rings the Big Tech Cash Register Tactic
October 14, 2025
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
The unusually tinted Financial Times published another “they will pay up and change, really” write up. The article is “Meta and Apple Close to Settling EU Cases.” [Note: You have to pay to read the FT’s orange write up.] The main idea is that these U S big technology outfits are cutting deals. The objective is to show that these two firms are interested in making friends with European Commission professionals. The combination of nice talk and multi-million euro payments should do the trick. That’s the hope.
Thanks, Venice.ai. Good enough.
The cute penalty method the EU crafted involved daily financial penalties for assorted alleged business practices. The penalties had an escalator feature. If the U S big tech outfits did not comply or pretend to comply, then the EU could send an invoice for up to five percent of the firm’s gross revenues. Could the E U collect? Well, that’s another issue. If Apple leaves the E U, the elected officials would have to use an Android mobile. If Meta departed, the elected officials would have to listen to their children’s complaints about their ruined social life. I think some grandmothers would be honked if the flow of grandchildren pictures were interrupted. (Who needs this? Take the money, Christina.)
Several observations:
- The EU will take money; the EU will cook up additional rules to make the Wild West outfits come to town but mostly behave
- The U S big tech companies will write a check, issue smarmy statements, and do exactly what they want to do. Decades of regulatory inefficacy creates certain opportunities. Some U S outfits spot those and figure out how to benefit from lack of action or ineptitude
- The efforts to curtail the U S big tech companies have historically been a rinse and repeat exercise. That won’t change.
The problem for the EU with regard to the U S is different from the other challenges it faces. In my opinion, the E U like other countries is:
- Unprepared for the new services in development by U S firms. I address these in a series of lectures I am doing for some government types in Colorado. Attendance at the talks is restricted, so I can’t provide any details about these five new services hurtling toward the online markets in the U S and elsewhere
- Unable to break its cycle of clever laws, U S company behavior, and accept money. More is needed. A good example of how one country addressed a problem online took place in France. That was a positive, decisive action and will interrupt the flow of cash from fines. Perhaps more E U countries should consider this French approach?
- The Big Tech outfits are not constrained by geographic borders. In case you have not caught up with some of the ideas of Silicon Valley, may I suggest you read the enervating and somewhat weird writings of a fellow named René Gerard?
Net net: Yep, a deal. No big surprise. Will it work? Nope.
Stephen E Arnold, October 15, 2025
Antitrust: Can Google Dodge Guilt Again?
October 9, 2025
The US Department of Justice brought an antitrust case against Google and Alphabet Inc. got away with a slap on the wrist. John Polonis via Medium shared the details and his opinion in, “Google’s Antitrust Escape And Tech’s Uncertain Future.” The Department of Justice can’t claim a victory in this case, because none of the suggestions to curtail Google’s power will be implemented.
Some restrictions were passed that ban exclusivity deals and require data sharing, but that’s all. It’s also nothing like the antitrust outcome of the Microsoft case in the 2000s. The judge behind the decision was Amit Mehta and he did want to deliver a dose of humility to Google:
“Judge Mehta also exercised humility when forcing Google to share data. Google will need to share parts of its search index with competitors, but it isn’t required to share other data related to those results (e.g., the quality of web pages). The reason for so much humility? Artificial intelligence. The judge emphasized Google’s new reality; how much harder it must fight to keep up with competitors who are seizing search queries that Google previously monopolized across smartphones and browsers.
Google can no longer use its financial clout like it did when it was the 900 pound gorilla of search. It’s amazing how much can change between the filing of an antitrust case and adjudication (generative AI didn’t even exist!).”
Google is now free to go hog wild with its AI projects without regulation. Google hasn’t lost any competitive edge, unlike Microsoft in its antitrust litigation. They’re now free to do whatever they want as well.
Polonis makes a very accurate point:
“The message is clear. Unless the government uncovers smoking gun evidence of deliberate anticompetitive intent — the kind of internal emails and memos that doomed Microsoft in the late 1990s (“cut off Netscape’s air supply”) — judges are reluctant to impose the most extreme remedies. Courts want narrow, targeted fixes that minimize unnecessary disruption. And the remedies should be directly tied to the anticompetitive conduct (which is why Judge Mehta focused so heavily on exclusivity agreements).”
Big Tech has a barrier free sandbox to experiment and conduct AI business deals. Judge Mehta’s decision has shaped society in ways we can’t predict, even AI doesn’t know the future yet. What will the US judicial process deliver in Google’s advertising legal dust up? We know Google can write checks to make problems go away. Will this work again for this estimable firm?
Whitney Grace, October 8, 2025
Big Tech Group Think: Two Examples
October 3, 2025
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
Do the US tech giants do group think? Let’s look at two recent examples of the behavior and then consider a few observations.
First, navigate to “EU Rejects Apple Demand to Scrap Landmark Tech Rules.” The thrust of the write up is that Apple is not happy with the European digital competition law. Why? The EU is not keen on Apple’s business practices. Sure, people in the EU use Apple products and services, but the data hoovering makes some of those devoted Apple lovers nervous. Apple’s position is that the EU is annoying.
Thanks, Midjourney. Good enough.
The write up says:
“Apple has simply contested every little bit of the DMA since its entry into application,” retorted EU digital affairs spokesman Thomas Regnier, who said the commission was “not surprised” by the tech giant’s move.
Apple wants to protect its revenue, its business models, and its scope of operation. Governments are annoying and should not interfere with a US company of Apple’s stature is my interpretation of the legal spat.
Second, take a look at the Verge story “Google Just Asked the Supreme Court to Save It from the Epic Ruling.” The idea is that the online store restricts what a software developer can do. Forget that the Google Play Store provides access to some sporty apps. A bit of spice is the difficulty one has posting reviews of certain Play Store apps. And refunds for apps that don’t work? Yeah, no problemo.
The write up says:
… [Google] finally elevated its Epic v. Google case, the one that might fracture its control over the entire Android app ecosystem, to the Supreme Court level. Google has now confirmed it will appeal its case to the Supreme Court, and in the meanwhile, it’s asking the Court to press pause one more time on the permanent injunction that would start taking away its control.
It is observation time:
- The two technology giants are not happy with legal processes designed to enforce rules, regulations, and laws. The fix is to take the approach of a five year old, “I won’t clean up my room.”
- The group think appears to operate on the premise that US outfits of a certain magnitude should not be hassled like Gulliver by Lilliputians wearing robes, blue suits, and maybe a powdered wig or hair extenders
- The approach of the two companies strikes me, a definite non lawyer, as identical.
Therefore, the mental processes of these two companies appear to be aligned. Is this part of the mythic Silicon Valley “way”? Is it a consequence of spending time on Highway 101 or the Foothills Expressway thinking big thoughts? Is the approach the petulance that goes with superior entities encountering those who cannot get with the program?
My view: After decades of doing whatever, some outfits believe that type of freedom is the path to enlightenment, control, and money. Reinforced behaviors lead to what sure looks like group think to me.
Stephen E Arnold, October 3, 2025
Google and Its End Game
October 1, 2025
No smart software involved. Just a dinobaby’s work.
I read “In Court Filing, Google Concedes the Open Web Is in Rapid Decline.” The write up reveals that change is causing the information highway to morph into a stop light choked Dixie Highway. The article states:
Google says that forcing it to divest its AdX marketplace would hasten the demise of wide swaths of the web that are dependent on advertising revenue. This is one of several reasons Google asks the court to deny the government’s request.
Yes, so much depends on the Google just like William Carlos Williams observed in his poem “The Red Wheelbarrow.” I have modified the original to reflect the Googley era which is now emerging for everyone, including Ars Technica, to see:
so much depends upon the Google, glazed with data beside the chicken regulators.
The cited article notes:
As users become increasingly frustrated with AI search products, Google often claims people actually love AI search and are sending as many clicks to the web as ever. Now that its golden goose is on the line, the open web is suddenly “in rapid decline.” It’s right there on page five of the company’s September 5 filing…
Not only does Google say this, the company has been actively building the infrastructure for Google to become the “Internet.” No way, you say.
Sorry, way. Here’s what’s been going on since the initial public offering:
-
- Attract traffic and monetize via ads access to the traffic
- Increased data collection for marketing and “mining” for nuggets; that is, user behavior and related information
- Little by little, force “creators,” Web site developers, partners, and users to just let Google provide access to the “information” Google provides.
Smart software, like recreating certain Web site content, is just one more technology to allow Google to extend its control over its users, its advertisers, and partners.
Courts in the US have essentially hit pause on traffic lights controlling the flows of Google activity. Okay, Google has to share some information. How long will it take for “information” to be defined, adjudicated, and resolved.
The European Union is printing out invoices for Google to pay for assorted violations. Guess what? That’s the cost of doing business.
Net net: The Google will find a way to monetize its properties, slap taxes at key junctions, and shape information is ways that its competitors wish they could.
Yes, there is a new Web or Internet. It’s Googley. Adapt and accept. Feel free to get Google out of your digital life. Have fun.
Stephen E Arnold, October 3, 2025
xAI Sues OpenAI: Former Best Friends Enable Massive Law Firm Billings
September 30, 2025
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
What lucky judge will handle the new dust up between two tech bros? What law firms will be able to hire some humans to wade through documents? What law firm partners will be able to buy that Ferrari of their dreams? What selected jurors will have an opportunity to learn or at least listen to information about smart software? I don’t think Court TV will cover this matter 24×7. I am not sure what smart software is, and the two former partners are probably going to explain it is somewhat similar ways. I mean as former partners these two Silicon Valley luminaries shared ideas, some Philz coffee, and probably at a joint similar to the Anchovy Bar. California rolls for the two former pals.
When two Silicon Valley high-tech elephants fight, the lawyers begin billing. Thanks, Venice.ai. Good enough.
“xAI Sues OpenAI, Alleging Massive Trade Secret Theft Scheme and Poaching” makes it clear that the former BFFs are taking their beef to court. The write up says:
Elon Musk’s xAI has taken OpenAI to court, alleging a sweeping campaign to plunder its code and business secrets through targeted employee poaching. The lawsuit, filed in federal court in California, claims OpenAI ran a “coordinated, unlawful campaign” to misappropriate xAI’s source code and confidential data center strategies, giving it an unfair edge as Grok outperformed ChatGPT.
After I read the story, I have to confess that I am not sure exactly what allegedly happened. I think three loyal or semi-loyal xAI (Grok) types interviewed at OpenAI. As part of the conversations, valuable information was appropriated from xAI and delivered to OpenAI. Elon (Tesla) Musk asserts that xAI was damaged. xAI wants its information back. Plus, xAI wants the data deleted, payment of legal fees, etc. etc.
What I find interesting about this type of dust up is that if it goes to court, the “secret” information may be discussed and possibly described in detail by those crack Silicon Valley real “news” reporters. The hassle between i2 Ltd. and that fast-tracker Palantir Technologies began with some promising revelations. But the lawyers worked out a deal and the bulk of the interesting information was locked away.
My interpretation of this legal spat is probably going to make some lawyers wince and informed individuals wrinkle their foreheads. So be it.
- Mr. Musk is annoyed, and this lawsuit may be a clear signal that OpenAI is outperforming xAI and Grok in the court of consumer opinion. Grok is interesting, but ChatGPT has become the shorthand way of saying “artificial intelligence.” OpenAI is spending big bucks as ChatGPT becomes a candidate for word of the year.
- The deal between or among OpenAI, Nvidia, and a number of other outfits probably pushed Mr. Musk summon his attorneys. Nothing ruins an executive’s day more effectively than a big buck lawsuit and the opportunity to pump out information about how one firm harmed another.
- OpenAI and its World Network is moving forward. What’s problematic for Mr. Musk in my opinion is that xAI wants to do a similar type of smart cloud service. That’s annoying. To be fair Google, Meta, and BlueSky are in this same space too. But OpenAI is the outfit that Mr. Musk has identified as a really big problem.
How will this work out? I have no idea. The legal spat will be interesting to follow if it actually moves forward. I can envision a couple of years of legal work for the lawyers involved in this issue. Perhaps someone will actually define what artificial intelligence is and exactly how something based on math and open source software becomes a flash point? When Silicon Valley titans fight, the lawyers get to bill and bill a lot.
Stephen E Arnold, September 30, 2025
Google Is Going to Race Penske in Court!
September 15, 2025
Written by an unteachable dinobaby. Live with it.
How has smart software affected the Google? On the surface, we have the Code Red klaxons. Google presents big time financial results so the sirens drowned out by the cheers for big bucks. We have Google dodging problems with the Android and Chrome snares, so the sounds are like little chicks peeping in the eventide.
—-
FYI: The Penske Outfits
- Penske Corporation itself focuses on transportation, truck leasing, automotive retail, logistics, and motorsports.
- Penske Media Corporation (PMC), a separate entity led by Jay Penske, owns major media brands like Rolling Stone and Billboard.
—-
What’s actually going on is different, if the information in “Rolling Stone Publisher Sues Google Over AI Overview Summaries.” [Editor’s note: I live the over over lingo, don’t you?] The write up states:
Google has insisted that its AI-generated search result overviews and summaries have not actually hurt traffic for publishers. The publishers disagree, and at least one is willing to go to court to prove the harm they claim Google has caused. Penske Media Corporation, the parent company of Rolling Stone and The Hollywood Reporter, sued Google on Friday over allegations that the search giant has used its work without permission to generate summaries and ultimately reduced traffic to its publications.
Site traffic metrics are an interesting discipline. What exactly are the log files counting? Automated pings, clicks, views, downloads, etc.? Google is the big gun in traffic, and it has legions of SEO people who are more like cheerleaders for making sites Googley, doing the things that Google wants, and pitching Google advertising to get sort of reliable traffic to a Web site.
The SEO crowd is busy inventing new types of SEO. Now one wants one’s weaponized content to turn up as a link, snippet, or footnote in an AI output. Heck, some outfits are pitching to put ads on the AI output page because money is the name of the game. Pay enough and the snippet or summary of the answer to the user’s prompt may contain a pitch for that item of clothing or electronic gadget one really wants to acquire. Psychographic ad matching is marvelous.
The write up points out that an outfit I thought was into auto racing and truck rentals but is now a triple threat in publishing has a different take on the traffic referral game. The write up says:
Penske claims that in recent years, Google has basically given publishers no choice but to give up access to its content. The lawsuit claims that Google now only indexes a website, making it available to appear in search, if the publisher agrees to give Google permission to use that content for other purposes, like its AI summaries. If you think you lose traffic by not getting clickthroughs on Google, just imagine how bad it would be to not appear at all.
Google takes a different position, probably baffled why a race car outfit is grousing. The write up reports:
A spokesperson for Google, unsurprisingly, said that the company doesn’t agree with the claims. “With AI Overviews, people find Search more helpful and use it more, creating new opportunities for content to be discovered. We will defend against these meritless claims.” Google Spokesperson Jose Castaneda told Reuters.
Gizmodo, the source for the cited article about the truck rental outfit, has done some original research into traffic. I quote from the cited article:
Just for kicks, if you ask Google Gemini if Google’s AI Overviews are resulting in less traffic for publishers, it says, “Yes, Google’s AI Overview in search results appears to be resulting in less traffic for many websites and publishers. While Google has stated that AI Overviews create new opportunities for content discovery, several studies and anecdotal reports from publishers suggest a negative impact on traffic.”
I have some views on this situation, and I herewith present them to you:
- Google is calm on the outside but in crazy mode internally. The Googlers are trying to figure out how to keep revenues growing as referral traffic and the online advertising are undergoing some modest change. Is the glacier calving? Yep, but it is modest because a glacier is big and the calf is small.
- The SEO intermediaries at the Google are communicating like Chatty Cathies to the SEO innovators. The result will be a series of shotgun marriages among the lucrative ménage à trois of Google’s ad machine, search engine optimization professional, and advertising services firms in order to lure advertisers to a special private island.
- The bean counters at Google are looking at their MBA course materials, exam notes for CPAs, and reading books about forensic accounting in order to make the money furnaces at Google hot using less cash as fuel. This, gentle reader, is a very, very difficult task. At another time, a government agency might be curious about the financial engineering methods, but at this time, attention is directed elsewhere I presume.
Net net: This is a troublesome point. Google has lots of lawyers and probably more cash to spend on fighting the race car outfit and its news publications. Did you know that the race outfit owned the definitive publication about heavy metal as well at Billboard magazine?
Stephen E Arnold, September 15, 2025
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
