Rolling Stone Publisher sucks Google to abstract abuse of artificial intelligence

Google has insisted that the option to the search results created from its artificial intelligence did not already harm the traffic of publishers. Publishers do not agree, and at least one of them is preparing to go to the court to prove the damage they claim that Google caused them. Penske Media Corporation, the parent company of Rolling Stone and Hollywood Reporter, A lawsuit against Google Friday because of allegations that the search giant had used his work without permission to generate summaries and eventually reduce traffic to its publications.

Penske argument is very simple: by showing a summary created by AI for an article at the top of the page via Google’s Overview of the AI, users have no reason to click to read the full article, which leads to the movement of traffic on its way to the publisher platforms, which you need to liquefy its content, either through ads or subscriptions. The company says, the search engine uses its monopoly to search to make publishers maintain mainly from reaching their content for nothing.

It is worth noting that Penske claims that in recent years, Google has not given any option but to give up reaching its content. The lawsuit claims that Google is now indexing only a web site, which makes it available to appear in the research, if the publisher agrees to give Google permission to use this content for other purposes, such as artificial intelligence summaries. If you think you are losing traffic by not getting clicks on Google, just imagine how bad appearances at all.

A Google spokesman said, unexpectedly, that the company does not agree with claims. “With an artificial intelligence overview, people find research more useful and use it more, creating new opportunities for the content that will be discovered. We will defend these indisputable claims.” Google’s spokesman Jose Castanida Reuters said.

This has been the company’s line in the first place since the traffic drops began to get a sound. Last month, the company published a leaflet for the blog, as it claimed that the click of Google’s search results to the websites was “relatively stable on an annual basis”-not without providing a definition of “relatively stable”. The company has also increased “click quality”, so people who click on them spend more time in the sites it is sent to.

This does not match what the publishers claim to see. DMG Media, the owner of Daily Mail, Claims Click to appear by up to 89 % since offering an artificial intelligence overview. A Wall Street Journal report Business Insider, Washington Post and HuffPost said all the decrease in traffic. I found PEW Research as well People do not click almost often when an artificial intelligence overview is available, and it has been found that people who are offered research results do not have AI summary to an article nearly twice like those who see a result created from artificial intelligence.

Only for the sake of kicks, if you ask Google Gemini if ​​the Google Ai overview leads to a decrease in the movement of publishers for publishers, it says: “Yes, it seems that an overview of Amnesty International in the search results leads to a decrease in traffic in many sites and publishers. It may be fun to ask Google,” Do you lie about the impact of artificial intelligence on traffic, or that your assistant in artificial intelligence provides wrong information and change Reliable? “