Login
close
Login is restricted to DCN Publisher Members. If you are a DCN Member and don't have an account, register here.
Search

Digital Content Next logo

Menu

Category results for "Perspectives"

Perspectives

DCN’s media industry must reads: week of December 19, 2024

Here are some of the best media stories our team has read so far this week

Perspectives

DCN’s media industry must reads: week of December 12, 2024

Here are some of the best media stories our team has read so far this week:

Concept image of a 2025 painted on a road headed for a sunrise as a concept image for 2025 media trends
Advertising | Featured Post | Innovation | Perspectives | Policy

The big 5 for 2025: forces impacting media and tech

As we barrel into the new year and all that awaits, the media industry is at the nexus of technological disruption, regulatory upheaval, and changing consumer sentiment in terms of media and expectations for it. From the rise of artificial intelligence to intensifying antitrust enforcement and the shifting stance of dominant platforms, the stakes for publishers and content companies have never been higher.  

Here’s a look at five critical trends in the media landscape and what they may mean in the future. 

Artificial intelligence is reshaping content creation and distribution with breakneck speed. AI-generated search results are increasingly the norm, while the fate of the underlying articles and video remains murky. Publishers are leveraging AI to scale production, personalize experiences, and streamline workflow. However, while this boom propels media forward, the underlying AI models are contentious in their devaluation – or outright dismissal of – property rights, IP, and the fair value of content, not to mention debate around the quality and accuracy of AI generated search results and source attribution.  

In 2025, marquee copyright cases are slated for trial. Courts will tackle questions about how intellectual property laws apply to works created or transformed by AI rather than humans. At stake are the legality of using copyrighted material to train AI models and the extent to which those models can monetize their output while risking, if not entirely supplanting, the clear licensing opportunity for publishers. These rulings will set precedents and could rewrite the rules of the road for both AI developers and publishers. 

Joining the groundswell, Canadian media orgs jumped in last week by collectively suing OpenAI, alleging unauthorized use of their news reporting to train its models. Similar lawsuits are expected to continue globally as publishers push for enforcement against misappropriation and/or copyright violations of their work. 

Media companies must once again prepare for these shifts by walking and chewing gum at the same time. As ever, publishers must safeguard their media content while continuously experimenting. The challenge will be striking the balance between embracing AI’s potential and ensuring accountability with their strategic technical platform partners. 

2. The role of a free and plural press amid political threats 

In this era of heightened political tensions, the role of the press as a democratic watchdog is paramount. In the U.S., the new administration brings with it a wave of uncertainty.  Media leaders watch with a wary eye as leadership nominations roll in.   

Concerns about surveillance, legal pressures and expense, and erosion of journalistic protections here and around the world are intensifying (to say the least). Globally, authoritarian regimes are leaning on tech to suppress dissent and control narratives, challenging the resilience of independent media.  

For publishers, protecting and promoting a pluralistic media ecosystem is essential. This means investing in news reporting, supporting press freedom initiatives, and maintaining commitments to accuracy and integrity despite political pressures. As threats to press freedom grow, a robust fourth estate remains critical to the industry’s long-term viability as well as to democracy itself.  

3. Social platforms: shifting sands in distribution 

Social media’s dominance in content distribution is being reshaped by user migration. Elon Musk’s tumultuous leadership of X (formerly Twitter) has alienated advertisers and much of its user base, notably journalists. This has fueled the rapid rise of Bluesky, a decentralized alternative designed to resist the power of billionaires and governments. Remarkably, Bluesky is approaching or has surpassed Meta’s Threads in certain usage metrics. Bluesky’s embrace of open-web principles and support for journalism –  very different from the current suppression of links on X and Threads – has further endeared it to journalists and publishers. 

These platform shifts come amid the FTC v. Meta antitrust trial, scheduled for April 2025. Although the legal complaint focuses on the relevant market of social media built around the personal social graph (thereby excluding X, Bluesky, Threads, and LinkedIn), the dynamics of platform competition remain crucial for publishers to connect with new audiences where they want to be reached. It is also as yet unclear how the incoming Trump administration will respond to a potential ban of TikTok, which is set to hit a key milestone the day before his inauguration. 

For media companies, platform diversification has long been a requirement. Relying too heavily on any one distribution channel leaves brands vulnerable to algorithm changes, shifting user sentiment, and unpredictable policy shifts. Building owned-and-operated platforms, prioritizing direct relationships with audiences, and leveraging multiple distribution channels are essential strategies to ensure resilience in this fragmented ecosystem. 

4. Regulatory and court interventions reshape big tech 

2025 is shaping up to be a watershed year for antitrust regulation and enforcement. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has already won its search antitrust case, calling for the divestiture of Google’s Chrome browser and potentially its Android operating system. Meanwhile, the DOJ’s Virginia adtech case (expected to result in another major win) foreshadows broader changes to Google’s dominance in digital advertising. Next up: the Texas adtech trial in March, followed by the previously mentioned FTC antitrust case against Meta. 

Beyond the U.S., Canada’s competition regulator called for the breakup of Google’s adtech business last week, with the European Union likely to follow suit. These developments could significantly reshape the global ad market, which would offer publishers an opportunity to regain control over their data and revenue streams.  

However, it also introduces uncertainty. Navigating new partnerships, technologies, and regulatory frameworks will require adaptability and leaning into a long-term strategy while bearing short-term headaches (read: costs). Building strong first-party data capabilities and exploring alternative adtech solutions will be crucial for growth in this evolving environment. 

5. Advertising reinvented: privacy, AI, and accountability 

Advertising is undergoing a transformation driven by consumer privacy concerns and regulation. The death of third-party cookies and the rise of privacy-focused technologies have elevated the importance of first-party data. This means that publishers’ direct relationships with audiences and the high-quality content they provide are more valuable than ever. 

Google’s antitrust challenges are also poised to reshape the future of advertising. The cases brought against the company globally allege manipulation of ad auctions and abuse of its monopoly power to harm publishers and consumers alike. If successful, these actions could reinvigorate competition and enable publishers to negotiate better terms, which would have been available for the past 10 years if it weren’t for Google’s  behaviors. The greatest fruit of Google’s abuses across search and adtech may well be YouTube where Google has been able to marry its unparalleled access to search, location, web-wide browsing, and adtech data with the largest pool of streaming video inventory on earth. It will be interesting to see if this attracts regulatory scrutiny in 2025. 

At the same time, AI is accelerating the evolution of advertising strategies. Predictive targeting, on the fly ad creative, and more advanced tech to control ad campaigns are helping large platforms capture new dollars from offline retail media while better maintaining privacy. For publishers, a dual focus on consumer trust and innovative monetization will be critical for success if they want to peel off some of these dollars. 

Outlook: shaping the future of media 

In 2025, the media industry is defined by rapid change and high stakes. From AI-driven innovation and platform fragmentation to regulatory challenges and shifting consumer expectations, content companies face a complex and evolving landscape. Success will require a commitment to trust, adaptability, and creativity. 

As DCN has long advocated, publishers prepared for these shifts – whether through diversifying revenue streams, strengthening first-party data, or doubling down on audience relationships – will be well-positioned to survive if not thrive. In this new era of accountability and competition, it’s not just about outlasting disruption; it’s about shaping what comes next. 

Perspectives

DCN’s media industry must reads: week of December 5, 2024

Here are some of the best media stories our team has read so far this week:

Perspectives

DCN’s media industry must reads: week of November 21, 2024

Here are some of the best media stories our team has read so far this week:

Perspectives

DCN’s media industry must reads: week of November 14, 2024

Here are some of the best media stories our team has read so far this week:

Perspectives

DCN’s media industry must reads: week of November 7, 2024

Here are some of the best media stories our team has read so far this week:

Diversity, Equity & Inclusion | Featured Post | Innovation | Perspectives | Revenue

Redefining media revenue: the search for new ‘DVD sales’

One of my new favorite YouTube channels is First We Feast, specifically the show Hot Ones, where celebrities answer great interview questions as they eat progressively hotter wings. While it’s always entertaining, a recent interview with Academy Award winner Matt Damon really stuck with me because of the way it parallels what is happening with news media today.  

He was asked about the macroeconomics of Hollywood, particularly how streaming has affected the subjective quality of content compared to decades ago. Damon explained how DVDs once generated huge revenue, allowing studios to take more creative risks because they could rely on profits from DVD sales after a film’s theatrical release. He shared an example from a studio executive who explained that making a movie would, in theory, cost $25 million, with another $25 million for print and advertising. Gross box office receipts are then split with theater owners, who typically keep about half. This structure means the film would need to earn around $100 million just to break even or beginning to even discuss profit.  

Safe bets versus experimentation and adaptability

This hit me close to home, even though I’m in a different industry. It made me think about how the news media industry has also undergone drastic changes due to technology, shifts in audience consumption habits, and declines in traditional revenue streams like print subscriptions and classified ads. Both industries now take fewer risks in unpredictable environments, arguably leading to a drop in content quality and diversity. While exceptional work is still produced, the shift toward safer, commercially viable content is evident. Yet the evolving landscape hints at a future that demands a more integrated and adaptive approach.  

Hollywood content creation, as Damon suggests, centers on box office hits that drive significant revenue in their theatrical run. In news media, revenue reliance is on digital ads, subscriptions, and paywalls.  

Damon’s discussion of the economics of film made me wonder: What’s the new “DVD-sales” for the news media industry? What will create sustainable revenue beyond conventional methods? As technology advances, I believe the solution is in building new models that effectively leverage current tech and audience trends to offer long-term financial stability. 

While traditional news content remains important, it’s clear that audience expectations constantly evolve. Technology unlocks new possibilities which organizations must experiment with to master. At the same time, communities and influencers are reshaping how audiences connect with news. To stay relevant, news media has to adapt to these changing consumption patterns and provide deeper engagement. It’s time for journalism to meet these evolving demands, focusing on the key areas that will define the future of news and become the industry’s new “DVD-sales.” 

Diverse and individualized identity in media 

As audience preferences evolve, identity and self-representation are becoming central to media consumption. People no longer want just content—they want content that reflects their values and creates a sense of belonging. Subscriptions, affiliations, and donations have become extensions of personal identity, allowing individuals to support causes, movements, or news platforms that align with who they are or aspire to be. This shift is empowering. It fosters deeper connections between the audience and the media. However, it requires representation and relatability.  

Audiences increasingly seek a voice in the content they engage with. Community-led journalism and immersive experiences meet this demand by offering behind-the-scenes access, deeper insights into investigative reporting, and platforms for expressing concerns and successes within communities. These media-driven town halls—both in-person and virtual—create spaces where passion and substance shape the conversation. Historically, community-led journalism has also empowered underserved groups. It gives them ownership of their stories, fosters empathy, and reinforces a sense of identity as individuals see themselves reflected in the content. 

Mission-driven partnerships 

As audiences seek media that reflects their authentic selves, corporations and philanthropic organizations are aligning with news outlets that share their values to forge impact-driven partnerships that open new revenue opportunities for news media. These partnerships—particularly with philanthropic foundations, renewable energy companies, and organizations focused on health and sustainability—fund journalism with shared societal goals. Rooted in corporate social responsibility, they empower journalism to deliver objective reporting while driving meaningful social change.  

 By supporting investigative journalism, documentaries, and projects that resonate with consumers’ values, these partnerships enhance engagement and create a sustainable, mission-driven funding model. And companies that invest in media that align with their core values forge deeper connections with consumers who see these efforts as an extension of their own identities. This trend could shift news revenue models from short-term advertising to long-term, scalable partnerships, offering a significant and exciting opportunity for the future of news media. 

Transformative role of technology 

While sticking with the tried-and-true tactics may seem like the safe bet, the industry will need to reinvigorate its spirit of innovation and risk to best connect with ever-evolving audience expectations.  Technology has empowered today’s audiences to be more authentic by providing quicker access to information and more immediate ways to explore their interests. Information access helps people understand themselves and the world around them with greater speed and depth.  

Newsrooms can harness this shift by embracing immersive reporting through interactive experiences like AR and VR, which allows individuals to step into different perspectives, fostering empathy and engagement. These immersive technologies, from placing reporters on the front lines to using interactive learning platforms, enable audiences to connect more deeply with content, helping them refine their views and consider how they want to contribute or enact change.  

The real breakthrough, however, is in AI’s role in driving personalized engagement. AI allows news organizations to deliver hyper-personalized content based on individual habits and preferences, a process once manual and time-consuming. With AI-enhanced data insights, organizations can understand their audiences at a granular level, offering timely, relevant, and highly customized content. This deeper connection with consumers anticipates their needs and creates impactful experiences, potentially transforming how news is consumed and delivered. 

The road ahead for media revenue

So where is this all leading, and how does this become the new “DVD-sales” for news media? The answer lies in a transformative, identity-driven, community and tech-powered ecosystem where audiences help shape the content. This approach will foster loyalty and create scalable, sustainable revenue beyond traditional ads and subscriptions. By leveraging the combined power of community and technology, news organizations can form partnerships with purpose-aligned entities, redefining how journalism is funded and experienced. 

I envision a digital platform where users actively participate, voting on story ideas or contributing content in an environment that tackles local and global issues. With AI and data-driven personalization, users can receive tailored content and news organizations can create high-demand immersive experiences like virtual town halls. 

 If you’re wondering how these ideas translate into reality, take a look at City Bureau in Chicago, which is already putting some of them to work. This journalism lab is reimagining local media by equipping communities to address information inequity. Their Documenters program trains and pays residents to cover local government meetings, boosting transparency and citizen involvement.  

This concept upholds journalistic integrity, ensures accuracy and drives meaningful community involvement. It integrates the community into the editorial process without compromising professional standards. The approach builds authentic connections and strengthens trust, which is crucial for attracting corporate sponsorships and philanthropic partnerships. No, it does not come in a handy book-sized package like the DVD. However, this is a model that puts the audience at the center to build a sustainable model through experimentation in how the news is made, delivered, and funded.  

Perspectives

DCN’s media industry must reads: week of October 31, 2024

Here are some of the best media stories our team has read so far this week:

Perspectives

The grey zone: Where the media fits into fake news

Change is an inevitable part of journalism. No one would deny the radical – and ongoing – technological shifts impacting the craft over the past three decades. And few (if any) would deny that some things have stayed the same. These include both a steadfast belief in the importance of journalistic ethics and the existence of fake news.

Where there are journalists creating news, there are codes of ethics to guide them. And where there is information widely disseminated to the public, there are those who would use it to communicate falsehoods. Without doubt, the two have intersected time and again throughout history. And today is no different. In fact, the incentives of modern media distribution may well lend themselves to the spread of anything incendiary (if not entirely accurate).

The familiar story about the impact of Orson Welles’ radio play The War of the Worlds is typically cast as a warning about the influence of the media on the public. Legend has it that listeners to the fake news alert truly believed that aliens were invading the country.  But that appears to have been only part of the story. 

Some scholars speculate that newspapers, acting on their fear that radio would siphon off their audience, planted the story to discredit their upstart competitor. According to Pooley and Saclow, the real fear was rooted in the media business model. Dependent on advertising, newspapers had to prove that they still had what it takes to attract readers. In order to do so, why not use their medium to report on spurious accounts, thus undermining radio and entering the grey area of fake-ish news.

Social media and purveyors of truth

Fast forward a hundred years. The contemporary focus on fake news has been expressed as starkly black and white. There are champions of truth and there are the peddlers of lies – at any point on the political spectrum. However, there is actually a good deal of unexplored grey space in the fake news discussion. And the media is due for a bit of soul searching in where it fits into this space.

Certainly, the premise that social media is solely responsible for the proliferation of mis- and disinformation is one that appeals to media-watchers, scholars and journalists of all stripes. They (social platforms) took audience attention and advertising revenue with their addictive design, algorithmic acumen, and surveillance advertising models. Given the sheer reach of these platforms, it is only natural to assume that they are responsible for the spread of fake news.

Yes, but… While social media platforms can track the number of views, likes and shares, they certainly can’t tell us why a post was shared and how someone reacted to it. Fake news may travel far and fast, but—while a key consideration—spread is only part of the problem.

Reach is something all media platforms and players crave. And as the fight for audience attention intensifies, the pressure is on to compete—which may mean everybody finds themselves playing by the platforms’ rules.

However, as social platforms “distance themselves from the news,” decrease its visibility, or outright block news altogether, the media business is presented with an uncomfortable moment on many levels. The traffic firehose has been kinked. Newsmakers need to rethink how to find, attract and build audiences. And if that’s less from social platforms and a return to direct relationships, it’s a great time to examine the way the message has been skewed to the social medium.

Journalists make good news

During the course of research I’m working on with an international workgroup (funded by the Center for Advanced Internet Studies in Bochum, Germany and which includes DCN’s editorial director, Michelle Manafy), we had the opportunity to speak to 20 U.S.-based news professionals. We asked them what they believed the role of the media is in society, and what they perceive as standing in the way of achieving that objective.

Every single one of them expressed the idea that their responsibility was to inform the public. And nearly all of them said that this was getting harder to do because of journalism’s broken business model, which they pointed out is driven by increased competition for attention, particularly with or on social platforms. Unfortunately, this attention imperative—on a digital playing field where comments and shares have taken on outsized import—incentivizes attention over information. 

It feels a bit like “any publicity is good publicity.” Except that, as they adhere to standards of quality that beget trust, journalists should be picky about what kind of publicity they seek to attract.

Today’s distribution channels—social media “public square” —may not afford us the ability to carefully curate the presentation of news as we might like. But just as we might look back and shudder at Yellow Journalism or propaganda-laden news reels, we need to own our place in the history that is unfolding.

Precision is key

If a headline or a soundbite may be the only aspect of the news our audiences are exposed to we must view it as such. Even when we know that a single scintillating fact is likely to get passed around on social, responsible journalistic practices mean we must provide the kind of context that avoids the likelihood of misinterpretation. Journalistic ethics should encourage us to resist the temptation of drifting into the grey zone with misleading hooks. 

If research suggests something—and remember, one report rarely “proves” anything—we must avoid blanket statements and absolutes, even if they are going to be much more “engaging” on social. If engaging means fueling the rage cycle with pithy half truths and headlines that highlight the most flame-fanning aspect of a story, the news media becomes complicit in the fake news lifecycle on social. Undoubtedly this approach is frequently rewarded with fierce debate. It might spread like wildfire on the socials. And to some, that will feel like success; who doesn’t want their 15 minutes of fame? Of course, this begs the question as to mission of news media.

But as social media dials down the news, it only gets harder to break through. And by extension, the incentives to find that sick factoid most likely to go viral grows.

Rebuild trust and the value proposition

Informing the public. Holding the powerful accountable. Representing the voices that go unheard. Serving the essential role in American Democracy as the Fourth Estate. These are the things that the news journalists we spoke to see as the role of the media in society.

And as the news seeks to find its way back to the American public; as it seeks to rebuild its crumbling business models, these are the foundational pillars.

Ask yourself what a misleading headline does to trust and your audience relationship because that relationship takes on a whole new meaning when the goal is more than a click, comment, like or follow.  As we focus on the post-social distribution model, random clicks fade in importance. Fleeting engagement will be reshaped as loyalty. And loyalty is built on trust; trust that you are making news so valuable it’s worth paying for.

Perspectives

DCN’s media industry must reads: week of October 24, 2024

Here are some of the best media stories our team has read so far this week:

Featured Post | Perspectives | Policy

Publishers need a new robots.txt for the AI era

While in some ways the web has evolved organically, it also functions within accepted structures and guidelines that have allowed websites to operate smoothly and to enable discovery online. One such protocol is robots.txt, which emerged in the mid 1990s to give webmasters some control over which web spiders could visit their sites. A robots.txt file is a plain text document that is placed in the root directory of a website. It contains instructions for search engine bots on which pages to crawl and which to ignore. Significantly, compliance with its directives is voluntary. Google, has long followed and endorsed this voluntary approach. And no publisher has dared to exclude Google considering its 90%+ share of the search market.

Today, a variety of companies use bots to crawl and scrape content from websites. Historically, content has been scraped for relatively benign purposes such as non-commercial research and search indexing, which promises the benefit of driving audiences to a site. In recent years, however, previously benign and new crawlers have begun scraping content for commercial purposes such as training Large Language Models (LLMs), use in Generative Artificial Intelligence (GAI) tools, and inclusion in retrieval augmented generation outputs (aka “grounding”).

Under current internet standards such as the robots.txt protocol, publishers can only block or allow crawlers by domain. Publishers are not able to communicate case-by-case (company, bot and purpose) exceptions in accordance with their terms of use in a machine-readable format. And again: compliance with the protocol is entirely voluntary. The Internet Architecture Board (IAB) held a workshop in September on whether and how to update the robots.txt protocol and it appears the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), which is responsible for the protocol, plans to convene more discussions on how best to move forward.

A significant problem is that scraping happens without notification to or consent from the content owners. It often violates the website’s terms of use in blatant violation of applicable laws. OpenAI and Google recognized this imbalance when they each developed differing controls (utilizing the robots.txt framework) for publishers to opt out of having their content used for certain purposes.

Predictably, however, these controls don’t fully empower publishers. For example, Google will allow a publisher to opt out of training for their AI services. However, if a publisher wants to prevent their work from being used in Generative AI Search—which allows Google to redeploy and monetize the content—they have to opt out of search entirely. It would be immensely useful to have an updated robots.txt protocol to provide more granular controls for publishers in light of the massive scraping operations of AI companies.

While big tech companies tout the benefits of AI, much of the content crawled and scraped by bots is protected under copyright law, or other laws which are intended to enable publishers and other businesses to protect their investments against misappropriation and theft.

Copyright holders have the exclusive right to reproduce, distribute and monetize their copyrighted works as they see fit for a defined period. These protections incentivize the creative industries by allowing them to reap the fruits of their labors and enable them to reinvest into new content creation. The benefits to our society are nearly impossible to quantify as the varied kinds of copyrighted material enrich our lives daily: music, literature, film and television, visual art, journalism, and other original works provide inspiration, education, and personal and societal transformation. The Founding Fathers included copyright in the Constitution (Article I, section 8, clause 8) because they recognized the value of incentivizing the creation of original works.

In addition to copyright, publishers also rely on contractual protections contained in their terms of service which govern how the content on their websites may be accessed and exploited. Additionally, regulation against unlawful competition is designed to protect against the misappropriation of content for purposes of creating competing products and services. This is to deter free riding and prevent dilution of incentives to invest in new content. The proper application of and respect for these laws is part of the basic framework underlying the thriving internet economy.

The value of copyrighted works must be protected

The primary revenues for publishers are advertising, licensing, and, increasingly, subscriptions. Publishers make their copyrighted content available to consumers through a wide range of means, including on websites and apps that are supported by various methods for monetization such as metered paywalls. It is important to note that even if content is available online and not behind a subscription wall, that does not extinguish its copyrighted status. In other words: It is not free for the taking.

That said, there are many cases where a copyright holder may choose to allow the use of their original work for commercial or non-commercial purposes. In these cases, potential licensees contact the copyright holder to seek a negotiated agreement, which may define the extent to which the content may be used and any protections for the copyright holder’s brand.

Unfortunately, AI developers, in large part, do not respect the framework of laws and rules described above. They seek to challenge and reshape these laws in a manner that would be exceptionally harmful for digital publishers, by bolstering their position that content made publicly available should be free for the taking – in this case, to build and operationalize AI models, tools and services.

Publishers are embracing the benefits of AI innovation. They are partnering with developers and third parties, for both commercial and non-commercial purposes, to provide access and licenses for the use of their content in a manner that is mutually beneficial. However, incentives are lacking to encourage AI developers to seek permission and access/licensing solutions. Publishers need a practical tool to signal to bots at scale whether they wish to permit crawling and scraping for the purposes of AI exploitation.

Next steps and the future of robots.txt

The IETF should update the robots.txt protocol to create more specific technical measures that will help publishers convey the purposes for which their content may or may not be used, including by expressing limitations on the scraping and use of their content for GAI purposes. While this should not be viewed as in any way reducing the existing legal obligations of third parties to seek permission directly from copyright holders, it could be useful for publishers to be able to signal publicly and through a machine-readable format what uses are permitted, e.g. scraping for search purposes is permitted, whereas scraping to train LLMs or other commercial GAI purposes is not. 

Of course, a publisher’s terms of use should always remain legally binding and trump any machine-readable signals. Furthermore, these measures should not be treated as creating an “opt out” system for scraping. A publisher’s decision not to employ these signals is not permission (either explicit or implicit) to scrape websites or use content in violation of the terms of use or applicable laws. And any ambiguity must be construed in favor of the rights holders.

In order to achieve a solution in a timely and efficient manner, the focus should be on a means to clearly and specifically signal permission or prohibitions against crawling and scraping for the purposes of AI exploitation. Others may seek to layer certain licensing solutions on top of this, which should be left to the market. In addition, it should be ensured that there is transparency for bots which crawl and scrape for purposes of AI exploitation. Any solution should not be predicated on the whims of AI developers to announce the identities of their bots or operate in any manner that obscures their identity and purposes of their activity.

And, critically, search and AI scraping must not be comingled. The protocol should not be allowed to be used in a manner that requires publishers to accept crawling and scraping for AI exploitation as a condition for being indexed for search.

Let’s not repeat the mistakes of the past by allowing big tech companies to leverage their dominance in one market to dominate an emerging market like AI. Original content is important to our future and we should build out web standards that carry forward our longstanding respect for copyright in the AI age.

©2024 Digital Content Next. All Rights Reserved.