| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 23 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 49:48:29 |
| Calls: | 583 |
| Files: | 1,138 |
| Messages: | 111,303 |
Today's Blog by Howard Oakley is well worth reading!
=
When The Economist publishes two articles, one of them a leader, about
the same issue you know it needs to be taken seriously. In its edition
of 19 July 2025, one of its leaders is titled To survive the AI age, the
web needs a new business model, and a longer article in its Business
section states AI is killing the web. Can anything save it? Both are
well worth the effort of creating an account to read them. The leader
states crisply that rCLthe danger is that, as answer-engines take readers away, they are removing the incentive for content to be created,rCY concluding that rCLif nothing changes, the risk is of a modern-day tragedy of the commons. The shared resource of the open web will be over-
exploited, leading to its eventual exhaustion.rCY
The problem lies in what it so appropriately refers to as GooglerCOs
change from being a search to an answer engine, a subject further
explored by the Pew Research CenterrCOs timely report of their study summarised here by humans. That demonstrates that Google rCLusers are less likely to click on links when an AI summary appears in the resultsrCY.
These themes are central to my previous account of PageRank and
plagiarism. As with others who publish original work on the web, IrCOm
used to sites that copy entire articles, such as MacMegasite. Within an
hour of its publication here, for example, that had stolen the whole of FridayrCOs Mac article, word for word.
More at .....
https://eclecticlight.co/2025/07/27/last-week-on-my-mac-Efae-no-ai-content/
I posted this as a comment, but I doubt it will appear:-
"An excellent article, Howard, which I will share with folk I hope will
read it. Thank you. I have no doubt that everything you say and do is
done so in good faith.
However, you have used and have recommended a product called EtreCheck,
made available by a 'Will 'o the wisp' character that you know
absolutely nothing about. I think you have been too trusting in that
regard. Perhaps it is now time to take a closer look at the developer of
the product."
On 27/07/2025 09:11, David B. wrote:
Today's Blog by Howard Oakley is well worth reading!
=
When The Economist publishes two articles, one of them a leader, about
the same issue you know it needs to be taken seriously. In its edition
of 19 July 2025, one of its leaders is titled To survive the AI age, the
web needs a new business model, and a longer article in its Business
section states AI is killing the web. Can anything save it? Both are
well worth the effort of creating an account to read them. The leader
states crisply that rCLthe danger is that, as answer-engines take readers
away, they are removing the incentive for content to be created,rCY
concluding that rCLif nothing changes, the risk is of a modern-day tragedy >> of the commons. The shared resource of the open web will be over-
exploited, leading to its eventual exhaustion.rCY
The problem lies in what it so appropriately refers to as GooglerCOs
change from being a search to an answer engine, a subject further
explored by the Pew Research CenterrCOs timely report of their study
summarised here by humans. That demonstrates that Google rCLusers are less >> likely to click on links when an AI summary appears in the resultsrCY.
These themes are central to my previous account of PageRank and
plagiarism. As with others who publish original work on the web, IrCOm
used to sites that copy entire articles, such as MacMegasite. Within an
hour of its publication here, for example, that had stolen the whole of
FridayrCOs Mac article, word for word.
More at .....
https://eclecticlight.co/2025/07/27/last-week-on-my-mac-Efae-no-ai-content/ >>
I posted this as a comment, but I doubt it will appear:-
"An excellent article, Howard, which I will share with folk I hope will
read it. Thank you. I have no doubt that everything you say and do is
done so in good faith.
However, you have used and have recommended a product called EtreCheck,
made available by a 'Will 'o the wisp' character that you know
absolutely nothing about. I think you have been too trusting in that
regard. Perhaps it is now time to take a closer look at the developer of
the product."
Sadly, *MY* comments are not reproduced!
Why IS that?
On Jul 27, 2025 at 5:06:46rC>AM EDT, ""David B."" <BD@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
On 27/07/2025 09:11, David B. wrote:
Today's Blog by Howard Oakley is well worth reading!
=
When The Economist publishes two articles, one of them a leader, about
the same issue you know it needs to be taken seriously. In its edition
of 19 July 2025, one of its leaders is titled To survive the AI age, the >>> web needs a new business model, and a longer article in its Business
section states AI is killing the web. Can anything save it? Both are
well worth the effort of creating an account to read them. The leader
states crisply that rCLthe danger is that, as answer-engines take readers >>> away, they are removing the incentive for content to be created,rCY
concluding that rCLif nothing changes, the risk is of a modern-day tragedy >>> of the commons. The shared resource of the open web will be over-
exploited, leading to its eventual exhaustion.rCY
The problem lies in what it so appropriately refers to as GooglerCOs
change from being a search to an answer engine, a subject further
explored by the Pew Research CenterrCOs timely report of their study
summarised here by humans. That demonstrates that Google rCLusers are less >>> likely to click on links when an AI summary appears in the resultsrCY.
These themes are central to my previous account of PageRank and
plagiarism. As with others who publish original work on the web, IrCOm
used to sites that copy entire articles, such as MacMegasite. Within an
hour of its publication here, for example, that had stolen the whole of
FridayrCOs Mac article, word for word.
More at .....
https://eclecticlight.co/2025/07/27/last-week-on-my-mac-Efae-no-ai-content/ >>>
I posted this as a comment, but I doubt it will appear:-
"An excellent article, Howard, which I will share with folk I hope will
read it. Thank you. I have no doubt that everything you say and do is
done so in good faith.
However, you have used and have recommended a product called EtreCheck,
made available by a 'Will 'o the wisp' character that you know
absolutely nothing about. I think you have been too trusting in that
regard. Perhaps it is now time to take a closer look at the developer of >>> the product."
Sadly, *MY* comments are not reproduced!
SKOCKING! OH THE HUMANITY!!!
Why IS that?
Maybe because he does not want to host comments from a clearly deranged person. Like you.
Maybe he does not want to join you in stalking the author. "Take a closer look" indeed.
Maybe - as I said a few days ago - EVERYONE KNOWS WHO AND WHAT YOU ARE.
Now that Howard is ignoring you, how long before you start stalking him? He is obviously involved in the "EtreCheck conspiracy". Right?
BTW, EVERY piece of software that you - and everyone else - use, is written by
people "that you know absolutely nothing about". So why are you STILL sliming ONLY EtreCheck? Why not mix it up and go after Thunderbird?