For thirty years, we published on the assumption that if you built something worth reading, people would find it. That assumption is now dead. Not because readers disappeared—they didn't. Not because quality stopped mattering—it still does. It died because the platforms that control discovery decided they could take the value without sending back the visitors. And then AI put that theft on steroids.

In This Article

• Why the internet's original bargain—create, distribute, sustain—collapsed completely
• How platform monopolies control every layer without needing evil intent
• Why zero-click searches mean Google keeps your readers instead of sending them
• What makes AI extraction different from every previous innovation—and worse
• Why thoughtful, reflective content dies first while outrage thrives
• How the advertising collapse reveals something deeper than algorithm changes
• Why "adapting" to these systems only makes publishers more dependent and vulnerable
• What actual survival looks like when the old rules stop working entirely
• The one question every independent publisher must answer for themselves

There was a time—not ancient history, just fifteen years ago—when publishing on the internet made a particular kind of sense. You created something worth reading. Search engines found it. Readers arrived. Some of them clicked on an ad or bought something you recommended. You made enough to keep the lights on and do it again tomorrow. Nobody got rich unless they got lucky, but you could survive if you were decent at it.

That bargain is gone. Not bent. Not strained. Gone.

The platforms that once connected creators-whether independent bloggers, small publishers, or large media outlets-to audiences now intercept that connection and keep it for themselves. Google doesn't send you the reader anymore—it reads your content, synthesizes it into an AI-generated summary, and serves that summary to the person who would have visited your site. Facebook doesn't share your post with people who chose to follow you—it charges you to reach the audience you built. YouTube doesn't reward consistency—it rewards whatever the algorithm decided to prioritize this week, and that decision changes without warning or explanation.

This isn't a conspiracy. It's not a secret cabal of executives plotting the destruction of independent media in a conference room. It's something more straightforward and more predictable: monopoly power doing what monopoly power always does. When one company controls discovery, monetization, and now synthesis, it doesn't need to intend harm. The harm happens anyway, built into the structure itself.

Intent is a distraction. Outcomes are what matter. Emphasizing direct connections can help publishers feel empowered to regain control and foster hope for the future.

Why Searching for Evil Misses the Point

People want villains. It makes the story clearer. But the platforms aren't villains in the comic-book sense—they're incentive-following machines operating within a system designed to reward consolidation. When Google controls 93% of search traffic, it doesn't have to care if publishers suffer. When Facebook decides that showing you posts from your friends doesn't generate enough engagement to justify the ad revenue, it doesn't have to care that you wanted to see those posts. When Amazon decides to surface its own products above third-party sellers, it doesn't have to care about fairness.

Monopolies don't require malice. They need market dominance and no meaningful accountability. Recognizing this can motivate publishers and media professionals to seek collective solutions and feel united in their efforts.

The debate over whether platforms "intend" to harm publishers is endless and useless. Relying heavily on these platforms makes publishers and media professionals feel vulnerable and cautious about their dependence.

History is full of systems that produced catastrophic harm without anyone explicitly choosing catastrophe. Bureaucracies that followed rules and created disasters. Economic structures that rewarded extraction until there was nothing left to extract. The internet platforms aren't different. They're following the logic of their position. However, some independent publishers and alternative platforms-like Substack, Mastodon, or niche community sites-are demonstrating that sustainable, independent models are possible when publishers prioritize direct relationships and open web principles.

That logic says: why send traffic when you can keep it?

How Search Stopped Sending Visitors

Google used to be a directory. You typed in a question, got a list of links, and clicked one. The site you visited, your click on an ad, and your email address if you liked what you found. Google got your search query data and served you one ad at the top of the results. Everyone got something.

Then came Featured Snippets. Google would pull a paragraph from a site and display it right at the top of search results. Useful for users—they got their answer faster. Less valuable for publishers—many users never clicked through. Google called this progress.

Then came zero-click searches. By 2024, 58% of searches ended without any clicks. By mid-2025, that number hit 69%. People searched, Google answered, and nobody visited a website. The open web became background material for Google's answer engine.

Publishers who'd spent years building expertise and creating content watched their traffic evaporate. Rankings stayed stable. Impressions held steady. Click-through rates collapsed. One lifestyle publisher saw traffic on a top-ranked article drop from a 5.1% click rate to 0.6% in a single year. Same position in search results. Same visibility. Ninety percent fewer visitors.

This wasn't an algorithm update. It was a business model change. Google decided that being the answer was more valuable than being the directory. Publishers became vendors of raw material—except they weren't getting paid.

Search stopped being about discovery and became about enclosure.

AI Extraction: The Supercharged Final Blow

If Featured Snippets wounded publishers and zero-click searches crippled them, AI Overviews are the executioner. And they work faster.

Here's what happened. Google trained its AI models on content scraped from millions of websites—news sites, educational resources, independent blogs like InnerSelf, everything publicly accessible. Publishers received no compensation. They weren't asked permission in any meaningful way. The training happened, the models got smarter, and Google rolled out AI Overviews in May 2024.

Now, when you search for something, Google's AI reads dozens of sources, synthesizes them into a coherent answer, and presents that answer at the very top of the page. The sources get listed as tiny citations below the AI-generated text. Researchers at Pew found that people click those citation links about 1% of the time. One percent.

Publishers saw immediate devastation. Digital Content Next surveyed 19 major publishers in mid-2025. The median traffic decline from Google was 10%. News publishers dropped 7%. Non-news content sites fell 14%. Some weeks were worse—news traffic down 16%, entertainment down 17%. One independent publisher, Giant Freakin Robot, shut down entirely after a 90% drop in traffic. The Planet D, a travel blog, closed for the same reason.

This isn't like previous innovations. When Google introduced Featured Snippets, at least your content was visible, and you had a chance at the click. With AI Overviews, your content gets fed into a machine that digests it, synthesizes it with everyone else's work, and presents a smooth answer that makes visiting your site unnecessary.

You did the research. You wrote the article. You paid for hosting. Google trained its AI on your work without payment, used that trained model to answer questions your article would have answered, and kept the reader on Google's property, where Google serves the ads and collects the revenue.

That's not innovation. That's enclosure. It's taking what used to be open, fencing it in, and charging admission—except the people who created the value don't get a cut. They get citations they can't pay to cover server bills.

AI didn't just continue the trend. It put the whole theft on steroids.

Why Thoughtful Content Dies First

Not all content suffers equally. Outrage and entertainment are holding up better than analysis and reflection. That's not an accident. It's algorithmic selection doing precisely what it's designed to do.

Platforms optimize for engagement. Engagement means time on the platform, interactions, shares, and emotional reactions. Thoughtful, nuanced content tends to be longer, slower, and less likely to provoke immediate emotional responses. Reflective essays about systemic problems don't generate the same click-through rates as "You Won't Believe What This Celebrity Did."

Progressive and empowering content faces an additional hurdle. When you're trying to help people understand complex systems or think more clearly about difficult topics, you're often working against tribal instincts and cognitive shortcuts. That kind of writing requires the reader to slow down and think. Algorithms don't reward slowing down. They reward rapid consumption and immediate sharing.

InnerSelf has published 25,000 pages over the past 30 years. The majority of it is calm, empowering, and focused on helping people think more clearly and live more consciously. None of that performs well in engagement-based systems. It's not clickbaity enough. It doesn't trigger enough arousal. It asks people to reflect instead of react.

Meanwhile, content that stokes fear, anger, or tribal loyalty thrives. Not because it's better. Not because people prefer it in any deep sense. Because the systems selecting what gets seen prioritize emotional intensity over thoughtfulness.

This is mechanical selection, not editorial judgment. But the result is the same: a slow suffocation of the content that might actually help people understand what's happening to them. Call it progress if you can say it with a straight face.

Why Rage Monetizes Better Than Reason

Right-wing content didn't take over the internet because conservatives are more tech-savvy. It took over because high-arousal, identity-driven content performs better in engagement-based systems. When your business model rewards time on the platform and predictable repeat visits, outrage is your best product.

This isn't about truth or values. It's about behavior patterns. Anger is a more reliable driver of engagement than curiosity. Tribal identity is more predictable than independent thinking. Fear keeps people coming back to check for threats. Algorithms learned this fast.

Content that tells people they're under attack, that the other side is evil, that simple solutions exist for complex problems—that content gets shared, generates comments, brings people back tomorrow. Content that says "this is complicated and you need to think about it carefully" performs poorly by comparison.

Publishers creating reflective, nuanced content weren't out-competed by better conservative arguments. They were algorithmically disadvantaged by platforms that reward certainty and emotional intensity. The marketplace of ideas got replaced by a marketplace of engagement metrics.

And engagement metrics prefer fury to thought every single time.

The Advertising Collapse Nobody's Talking About

Traffic decline tells part of the story. Advertising degradation tells the rest.

We've watched ad quality on InnerSelf crater over the past five years. Same ad network we've used for decades. Same placement strategies. But the ads themselves became repetitive, irrelevant, and sometimes bizarre. We'd see the same insurance ad twenty times in a week. Readers would get pitched products they'd already bought. Programmatic advertising promised targeting and relevance. What it delivered was whatever the algorithm decided would maximize its own revenue.

Meanwhile, we'd visit questionable sites—content farms, misinformation hubs, places with obvious ethical problems—and they'd be running ads from major brands. Blue-chip advertisers paying to appear next to garbage. Why? Because those sites delivered engagement certainty. They knew how to game the metrics.

The programmatic advertising ecosystem didn't optimize for quality. It is optimized for predictability. Sites that could guarantee clicks got ads. Sites that attracted thoughtful readers who might or might not click got whatever was left over.

This isn't an accident or a bug. It's the system working as designed. When advertisers don't know where their ads appear and don't pay enough attention to find out, the money flows to whoever can fake the metrics most convincingly. Thoughtful publishers can't compete with that. They don't want to.

Advertising was supposed to sustain the open web. Instead, it became another extraction mechanism, rewarding manipulation over substance. And publishers who refused to manipulate got quietly throttled.

YouTube Is Running the Same Playbook

This isn't just a publishing problem. Video creators are watching the same pattern unfold on YouTube. Channels that built audiences over the years suddenly see view counts collapse without explanation. Monetization becomes unpredictable. The algorithm decides who gets recommended and who disappears, and it constantly changes those decisions.

Creators chase algorithmic preferences—shorter videos, more frequent uploads, higher emotional intensity, and clickbait thumbnails. The ones who adapt survive a little longer. The ones who don't get replaced. YouTube doesn't care. There's always another creator willing to feed the machine.

The pattern is identical. Control discovery, control monetization, keep creators dependent and scrambling. Optimize for engagement over quality. Replace human curation with algorithmic selection. Extract maximum value while providing minimum stability.

Search logic applied to video produces the same outcome: a few winners, many losers, and everyone living in fear of the following algorithm change. That's not a creator economy. That's a hostage situation with better branding.

This Is What Digital Monopoly Looks Like

Traditional antitrust law struggles with platform monopolies because the harm doesn't fit old categories. Nobody's raising prices—search is free. Nobody's restricting supply—anyone can publish. The damage is subtler and more structural.

Platform monopolies control the infrastructure of discovery, monetization, analytics, and now synthesis. If you want an audience, you go through them. If you wish to receive, you use their systems. If you want data about your own audience, you need to ask for permission. If you want your content to train their AI, you don't get a choice unless you're big enough to sue.

There's no appeal process. No accountability. No requirement to explain decisions. You wake up one morning to find your traffic is down 25%, and nobody will tell you why. You watch your content get fed into AI systems that replace your traffic, and your options are to accept it or disappear from search entirely.

This is monopoly abuse. It doesn't require price-fixing or explicit collusion. It requires control over infrastructure and the absence of alternatives. When one company owns the pipes, the platform, and the destination, it can change the rules whenever it wants. And they do.

The government is starting to notice, but decades late and moving at bureaucratic speed. Meanwhile, publishers are dying in real time. Waiting for antitrust enforcement is like waiting for an ambulance while you bleed out. Might arrive eventually. It may not matter by then.

Why "Adapting" Became Surrender

Every publisher hears the same advice: adapt. Learn SEO. Optimize for algorithms. Create better content. Post more frequently. Build an email list. Diversify revenue. All of it sensible-sounding. All of it misses the point.

You can't SEO your way out of zero-click searches. The reader gets their answer without visiting your site, no matter how well you optimized. You can't outdo the algorithm AI Overviews. Your content trains the system that replaces you. You can't diversify away from platforms that control discovery. Where else do readers find you?

Adapting to extractive systems makes you more dependent, not less. Every hour spent optimizing for Google's algorithm is an hour not spent building direct relationships with readers. Every strategy designed to please the platforms gives them more control over your survival.

The advice to adapt sounds reasonable because it preserves the illusion of agency. Do these things, and you'll be fine. Except you won't be, because the system isn't designed to sustain you. It's designed to extract value from you until there's nothing left to extract.

Some publishers will survive by adapting. Most won't. The difference isn't skill or effort. It's whether the platforms decide your particular adaptation is helpful to them this week. That's not a business model. That's hoping not to be the next one eaten.

What Survival Actually Requires Now

Real survival in this environment means accepting that the old model is gone and building something different. Not better SEO. Not more content. Different foundations entirely.

Direct relationships matter more than discovery. An email list of 10,000 engaged readers beats a million monthly visitors from search who never come back. You own the email list. Google owns the search traffic. When Google changes the rules, your email list still works.

Trust matters more than engagement. Readers who know you, trust you, and want to support your work will sustain you better than an audience of strangers chasing dopamine hits. You can't build trust at scale through algorithmic distribution. You make it slowly, one reader at a time.

Archives matter more than virality. Content that remains valuable for years matters more than content optimized for this week's algorithm. InnerSelf has thirty years of material that still helps people. That's an asset platforms can't replicate, and algorithms can't devalue.

Smaller but more resilient models beat large but fragile ones. A thousand paying subscribers who value what you do will outlast a hundred thousand casual visitors who arrived because Google sent them and disappeared when Google stopped sending them.

None of this is easy. None of it delivers the growth publishers got used to in the 2000s. But it might actually work when everything else is actively failing. That's not hope. It's just math.

The Question Every Publisher Faces

The internet isn't going to vanish. It's going to narrow. The open web will become a smaller space populated by people who choose to be there, rather than those directed there by algorithms. Platform monopolies will continue consolidating control because nobody's stopping them fast enough.

Independent publishers face one question: What are you willing to trade for survival?

If you keep chasing algorithmic approval, you trade autonomy for access. You get to keep publishing, but only on terms that can change without notice. If you walk away from platforms entirely, you trade reach for independence. Your audience shrinks, but it's actually yours.

There's no one-size-fits-all answer. Some publishers have the resources to build entirely independent infrastructure. Most don't. Some have audiences loyal enough to follow them off-platform. Many don't. Some can survive on subscriptions or direct support. Others can't make the numbers work.

What's clear is that the middle ground is disappearing. You can't be sort-of independent while relying on monopoly platforms for discovery and revenue. That space is collapsing. The platforms want everything or nothing. They'll tolerate you as long as you're helpful and discard you the moment you're not.

This isn't about technology anymore. It's about philosophy. Do you accept dependence on systems designed to extract value until you collapse? Or do you build something smaller, slower, and more sustainable—knowing you'll reach fewer people but actually reach them?

Every publisher answers that question with their choices, whether they acknowledge it or not. The internet we get on the other side depends on how many of us choose independence over convenience. That number is looking smaller every year.

But it's not zero yet.

About the Author

Robert Jennings is the co-publisher of InnerSelf.com, a platform dedicated to empowering individuals and fostering a more connected, equitable world. A veteran of the U.S. Marine Corps and the U.S. Army, Robert draws on his diverse life experiences, from working in real estate and construction to building InnerSelf.com with his wife, Marie T. Russell, to bring a practical, grounded perspective to life’s challenges. Founded in 1996, InnerSelf.com shares insights to help people make informed, meaningful choices for themselves and the planet. More than 30 years later, InnerSelf continues to inspire clarity and empowerment.

 Creative Commons 4.0

This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 License. Attribute the author Robert Jennings, InnerSelf.com. Link back to the article This article originally appeared on InnerSelf.com

Article Recap

The collapse of independent publishing isn't accidental. Platform monopolies control discovery, monetization, and synthesis without needing malicious intent—structural dominance produces the harm. Zero-click searches keep readers on Google instead of sending them to publishers. AI extraction accelerated this by training on publisher content without compensation and replacing traffic with synthesized answers. Thoughtful, reflective content dies first because algorithms reward emotional intensity over nuance. Advertising degraded as programmatic systems optimized for engagement certainty rather than quality. Adapting to these systems only deepens publisher dependency. Real survival requires direct relationships, trust-based audiences, and strategic disengagement from extractive platforms. The internet is narrowing. Every independent publisher must decide what they're willing to trade for survival—autonomy or access, independence or reach. The middle ground is gone.

#PlatformMonopolies #AIExtraction #IndependentPublishing #OpenWebDecline #ZeroClickSearch #AIOverviews #PublisherCrisis #Enshittification #DigitalMonopoly #ContentMonetization